# URBAN COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION-SUBDIVISION ITEMS - October 9, 2008 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Commission · October 9, 2008 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/618 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/618?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2008-10-09 - **Body**: Commission - **Last revised**: July 16, 2026 - **Length**: 32,294 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission met on October 9, 2008, at 1:35 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building located at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky. Randall Vaughn presided over the meeting, which included consideration of nine agenda items. The Commission took 10 votes during the session and heard no public comments. Of the nine items on the agenda, the Commission approved three proposals, denied two, and deferred four to future meetings. The approved items included DP 2008-106 for the Sikura-Justice Property, Unit 6 (Polo Club Center); DP 2008-129 for Greendale Hills (Chesapeake Equine); and PFR 2008-2 for the LFUCG Public Safety Operations Center. The Commission denied PLAN 2008-128F for the Community Montessori School & Community Montessori Middle School and BOAR 2008-1, an appeal by Marion C. Laughlin, II. Four items were deferred for further consideration: PLAN 2008-71P for Hampton Springs, PLAN 2008-76F for Bogie Estate Lot 1, PLAN 2008-123F for Providence Place Tract 3, and DP 2008-124 for Providence Place Tract 3. ## Attendance **Present:** Randall Vaughn, Neill Day, Ed Holmes, Carolyn Richardson, Lynn Roche-Phillips, Mike Cravens, Marie Copeland, Frank Penn, Mike Owens, and Patrick Brewer **Absent:** Joan Whitman **Late:** Ed Holmes ## Votes and Decisions **Postponements to November 13, 2008** Four items were postponed to November 13, 2008: - PLAN 2008-71P: HAMPTON SPRINGS was postponed on a voice vote of 9-0 [timestamp: 0:05:44], with motion by Frank Penn and second by Mike Cravens. - PLAN 2008-76F: BOGIE ESTATE, LOT 1 was postponed on a voice vote of 9-0 [timestamp: 0:06:54], with motion by Mike Cravens and second by Carolyn Richardson. - PLAN 2008-123F: PROVIDENCE PLACE, TRACT 3 was postponed on a voice vote of 9-0 [timestamp: 0:08:00], with motion by Mike Owens and second by Frank Penn. - DP 2008-124: PROVIDENCE PLACE, TRACT 3 was postponed on a voice vote of 9-0 [timestamp: 0:08:41], with motion by Mike Owens and second by Frank Penn. **Consent Agenda** Consent agenda items were approved unanimously on a voice vote of 10-0 [timestamp: 0:12:07], with motion by Neill Day and second by Mike Cravens. **Failed Motion** PLAN 2008-128F: COMMUNITY MONTESSORI SCHOOL & COMMUNITY MONTESSORI MIDDLE SCHOOL failed on a roll call vote of 4-6 [timestamp: 1:03:00], with motion by Patrick Brewer. Voting in favor were Randall Vaughn, Ed Holmes, Patrick Brewer, and Lynn Roche-Phillips. Voting against were Carolyn Richardson, Frank Penn, Mike Owens, Mike Cravens, Marie Copeland, and Neill Day. **Approved Items with Conditions** - DP 2008-106: SIKURA-JUSTICE PROPERTY, UNIT 6 (POLO CLUB CENTER) was approved on a voice vote of 10-0 [timestamp: 2:03:08], with motion by Ed Holmes. The approval included the condition to incorporate vehicular connection. - DP 2008-129: GREENDALE HILLS (CHESAPEAKE EQUINE) was approved on a voice vote of 10-0 [timestamp: 2:29:14], with motion by Frank Penn. The approval included the condition for addition of sidewalks to Greendale Road. - PFR 2008-2: LFUCG PUBLIC SAFETY OPERATIONS CENTER was approved on a voice vote of 10-0 [timestamp: 2:56:09], with motion by Mike Cravens. The approval included conditions to present to Royal Spring Wellhead Protection Committee and preserve tree lines. **Appeal Decision** BOAR 2008-1: MARION C. LAUGHLIN, II appeal was disapproved on a voice vote of 10-0 [timestamp: 3:53:10], with motion by Mike Cravens. ## Contested Items **PLAN 2008-128F: Community Montessori School & Community Montessori Middle School** The Commission voted on a motion to approve this plan, which resulted in a split decision. The motion failed with a vote of 4-6, demonstrating significant division among the commissioners regarding the proposal. The failure to achieve approval indicated that a majority of commissioners had concerns or objections to the plan as presented. **BOAR 2008-1: Marion C. Laughlin, II Appeal** This appeal generated heated discussion during the meeting. The central issue involved the economic viability of restoring a historic property. The appeal was contested between the appellant's attorney, who presented arguments in favor of the appeal, and preservation staff, who presented counterarguments. The detailed nature of the discussion reflected the complexity of balancing economic feasibility with historic preservation requirements. ## PLAN 2008-71P: HAMPTON SPRINGS The Commission discussed PLAN 2008-71P: HAMPTON SPRINGS during the October 9, 2008 meeting [timestamp: 00:05:44]. **Outcome** The plan was deferred and postponed to the November 13, 2008 meeting for further consideration. **Key Issues** The deferral was necessitated by unresolved issues regarding street connection and waivers that required additional time to address before the Commission could proceed with approval. **Speakers** Rory Kahly participated in the discussion of this agenda item. ## PLAN 2008-76F: BOGIE ESTATE, LOT 1 [timestamp: 06:54] The Commission discussed Plan 2008-76F for Bogie Estate, Lot 1. Rory Kahly addressed the Commission regarding this matter. The plan was postponed to the November 13, 2008 meeting. The deferral was necessitated by unresolved issues concerning lot size and right-of-way dedication that required further attention before the Commission could proceed with approval. **Outcome:** Deferred to November 13, 2008 meeting. ## PLAN 2008-123F: PROVIDENCE PLACE, TRACT 3 [timestamp: 00:08:00] The Commission discussed PLAN 2008-123F: PROVIDENCE PLACE, TRACT 3 during this meeting. **Key Speaker** - Rory Kahly **Discussion** The plan was presented for consideration by the Commission. During the discussion, unresolved issues regarding street continuity were identified as obstacles to approval. **Outcome** The Commission deferred action on this plan. The item was postponed to the November 13, 2008 meeting to allow time for the identified street continuity issues to be resolved before the plan could move forward. ## DP 2008-124: PROVIDENCE PLACE, TRACT 3 This item was presented as a discussion item regarding the Providence Place, Tract 3 development plan [timestamp: 0:08:41]. **Key Speaker** Rory Kahly addressed the Commission on this matter. **Outcome** The plan was deferred and postponed to the November 13, 2008 meeting. The postponement was necessitated by unresolved issues regarding street connection to adjacent property that required further resolution before the Commission could proceed with consideration of the proposal. ## PLAN 2008-128F: COMMUNITY MONTESSORI SCHOOL & COMMUNITY MONTESSORI MIDDLE SCHOOL [timestamp: 1:03:00] The Commission discussed a plan for Community Montessori School and Community Montessori Middle School, focusing on a waiver request for street improvements and connectivity requirements. **Key Speakers** Richard Murphy and Janet Ashby participated in the discussion of this agenda item. **Discussion and Outcome** The plan centered on a request to waive street improvements and connectivity standards. Following discussion and deliberation, a motion to approve the plan was brought before the Commission but failed to pass. The plan was ultimately denied. ## DP 2008-106: SIKURA-JUSTICE PROPERTY, UNIT 6 (POLO CLUB CENTER) [timestamp: 2:03:08] The Commission discussed the development plan for the Sikura-Justice Property, Unit 6 located at Polo Club Center. Key speakers on this item included Al Gross and Steve Rochelle. The plan was presented for Commission consideration and review. During the discussion, the Commission identified the need for a vehicular connection to the adjacent property as an important condition for approval. The Commission approved the development plan with conditions. The primary condition required the incorporation of a vehicular connection to the adjacent property into the final design and implementation of the project. ## DP 2008-129: GREENDALE HILLS (CHESAPEAKE EQUINE) The Commission discussed the Greendale Hills (Chesapeake Equine) development plan during the meeting. [timestamp: 2:29:14] Bill Lee presented on this agenda item. The plan was approved by the Commission with conditions. A key requirement imposed was the addition of sidewalks to Greendale Road as part of the development. ## PFR 2008-2: LFUCG PUBLIC SAFETY OPERATIONS CENTER [timestamp: 2:56:09] The Commission discussed the Preliminary Functional Review (PFR) for the LFUCG Public Safety Operations Center project. **Key Speaker** Bill Sallee presented on this agenda item. **Outcome** The plan was approved with conditions. The approval required that the project team: - Present the plan to the Royal Spring Wellhead Protection Committee - Preserve tree lines as part of the project design ## BOAR 2008-1: MARION C. LAUGHLIN, II appeal [timestamp: 3:53:10] The Commission considered an appeal regarding a request to demolish a historic structure. The discussion involved Leslie Rosenbaum and Betty Kerr as key speakers. The appeal sought to overturn a previous decision by the Board of Architectural Review. The Commission reviewed the case and ultimately denied the appeal, thereby upholding the Board of Architectural Review's original decision to prohibit the demolition of the historic structure. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — postponed (9-0): Postpone PLAN 2008-71P: HAMPTON SPRINGS to November 13, 2008 - **Motion** — postponed (9-0): Postpone PLAN 2008-76F: BOGIE ESTATE, LOT 1 to November 13, 2008 - **Motion** — postponed (9-0): Postpone PLAN 2008-123F: PROVIDENCE PLACE, TRACT 3 to November 13, 2008 - **Motion** — postponed (9-0): Postpone DP 2008-124: PROVIDENCE PLACE, TRACT 3 to November 13, 2008 - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Approve consent agenda items - **Motion** — failed (4-6): Approve PLAN 2008-128F: COMMUNITY MONTESSORI SCHOOL & COMMUNITY MONTESSORI MIDDLE SCHOOL - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Approve DP 2008-106: SIKURA-JUSTICE PROPERTY, UNIT 6 (POLO CLUB CENTER) with conditions - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Approve DP 2008-129: GREENDALE HILLS (CHESAPEAKE EQUINE) with conditions - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Approve PFR 2008-2: LFUCG PUBLIC SAFETY OPERATIONS CENTER with conditions - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Disapprove BOAR 2008-1: MARION C. LAUGHLIN, II appeal --- ## Full transcript Tonight, tonight, won't mean just any night. Tonight, there will be no mourning star. Tonight, tonight, I'll see my love tonight, and for us, stars will shine really bright. They say there's a tree in the forest... I would like to, uh, call to order the, uh, October 9th meeting of the Planning Commission. And at this time, we do not have any minutes to approve, so we will go, uh, into our request for postponements and withdrawals. Uh, postponements and withdrawals will be considered at this time. Mr. Chairman and members of the commission, I'm Rory Kayley with EA Partners. Page one, item one, this is, uh, Plan 2008-71P, Hampton Springs, requests a one-month postponement. Mr. Salih, what, uh, the one month? Your meeting is November 13th. Thank you, sir. Okay. We have a request for a one-month postponement till the November 13th meeting for Plan 2008-71P, Hampton Springs. This is for property located at 4574 Harrodsburg Road. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this request for a postponement? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for a one-month postponement of the November 13th meeting for Plan 2008-71P. Second. We have a motion and a second for a postponement. All those in favor, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." Motion carries. Thank you. Uh, page two, under Final Subdivision Plans, Item A, Plan 2008-76F, Bogey Estate, Lot 1, requests a one-month postponement to November 13th. Thank you, Mr. Kaley. We have a request for a one-month postponement til November 13th meeting for Plan 2008-76F for Bogey Estate, Lot 1. This is for property located at 5846 Old Richmond Road. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this request for a postponement? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Um, Mr. Chairman, move to postpone Plan 2008-76F to November 13th. Second. We have a motion and a second for a postponement. All those in favor, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." Motion carries. Thank you. Next item on your agenda, Plan 2008-123F, Providence Place, Tract 3, request a one-month postponement to November 13th. Thank you, sir. We have a request for a one-month postponement to the November 13th meeting for Plan 2008-123F, Providence Place, Tract 3. This is for property located at 2200 Newtown Pike. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this request for a postponement? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, um, would that include the development plan 2008-124 as well? It will in a minute. It will in a minute. I believe it will. I thought I'd take 'em separately. Take 'em separately. Okay, thank you. I'll move for, uh, postponement of Plan 2008-123F until the November 13th, 2008 meeting. Second. We have a motion and a second for postponement. All those in favor, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." Motion carries. Thank you. And as Mr. Owens was pointing out, on page five, top of that page, Item B, DP 2008-124, Providence Place, Tract 3, request a one-month postponement to November 13th. Thank you, Mr. Kaley. We have a request for a one-month postponement for DP 2008-124, Providence Place, Tract 3. This is for property located at 2200 Newtown Pike. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this request for a postponement? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'll move for postponement of DP 2008-124 until November 13th, 2008. Second. Second. We have a motion and a second for postponement. All those in favor, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any additional requests for postponement or withdrawal? Mm-kay. At this time, we're moving to our land subdivision items, and we'll begin with our consent agenda. Um, we have, um, it appears, uh, six applications on the consent agenda, and I'll defer to Mr. Salih to review those on the consent agenda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, good afternoon. There are six plans, uh, that are on your regular agenda that do qualify for consideration on your consent agenda today. First item is a final record plat that appears on page three. It's Item D on your regular agenda. Plan 2008-129F, Coconot and Riggs. This is a final record plat for property at 319 North Broadway. The next item, uh, is on page three, Item E of your regular agenda. It is Plan 2008-130F, Hatch & Wilkes, Unit 1D. This is a final record plat for three lots, a portion of 1811 Winchester Road. The next item on your consent agenda is also the next item on your regular agenda, page three, Item F, Plan 2008-80F, Mahan Unit 1C. This is for property located at 2940 Man O War Boulevard, and that is a continued discussion item. The next item on your consent agenda appears on page four, Item G of your meeting agenda, Plan 2004-226F, a final record plat for Higby Mill Reserve. This is a reapproval, recommended for reapproval by the subdivision committee. There are two final development plans also on your consent agenda. The first appears on page five, Item D of your meeting agenda, DP 2008-130, a final development plan amendment for Southland Village Subdivision Unit 1C Block K, Section 1, Lot 4. This is for property at 2020 Regency Road. And the final item on your consent agenda appears on page six, Item E of your meeting agenda. This would be DP 2008-131, Ellerslie Place, Lot 2, Belle Place Amended. This is for property at a portion of 225 Walthern Avenue. Mr. Chairman, these items can be considered on your consent agenda unless there are requests to remove them, either from the commission, uh, by folks in the audience, or by applicants. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Salih. You've heard the reading of the consent agenda. Uh, are there any, um ... Is there anyone in the audience that would like to, uh, have any of these applications heard? Seeing none, is, are there any from the commission that they would like to have heard? Okay. Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move that we, um, accept the consent agenda as stated by Bill with the six items listed. Second. Okay. We have a motion to second to accept the consent agenda as read. All those in favor of, uh, the motion, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." Motion carries. Thank you. Okay. If, um -- next, we'll, um, give the staff an opportunity to set up and we'll go into our first, uh, first plan. It's no matter, darling, where you are. I think of you. Night and day, why is it so? That this longing for you follows wherever I go. In the roaring traffic's boom. Boom. In the silence of my lonely room. I think of you. You, you, you, you, you. Night and day. Night and day. Under the light of day. There's an oh, such a hungry yearning burning inside of me. And this longing won't be through. 'Til you let me spend my life making love to you. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, if I may direct your attention to page two, at the bottom of the page, item C. Plan 2008-128F, Community Montessori School and Community Montessori Middle School. This is a final record plat. It's located here on Stone Road. It's a 12-acre parcel. They're proposing to split it into two lots. Again, you can see Stone Road, Pasadena, Southview. Stone Road makes its 90-degree turn, carries over here to Clays Mill, again, parallel to New Circle Road at this point. The plat, again, here's Stone Road, here's the parent area. They wish to subdivide this Lot Number 2, it's about .8 acres, out of the parent tract. There's an existing house that sits here that they wish to utilize. There's two houses here that are vacant and are intended to be torn down. This is the floodplain. It is a FEMA floodplain through this area. This is the, this is the top of the watershed for the, uh, tributary that runs through Stonewall, the Stonewall tributary. This is the top of the, of the watershed here. Here across is Big Run Road with the, uh, industrial and warehouse and repair shops and that sort of thing in this area. This is Chase Place, a small little subdivision right here. You can see how it, off Stone Road. That's Chase Place. And here in the Open Gates neighborhood, which is to the north of this proposed lot split is Arc Royal Way, which as you can see, stubs into the property. The Subdivision Committee reviewed this plan and they recommended it for approval. The conditions, which are on the top of page three, are, uh, fairly standard. They have the n- the normal sign-offs and clarification, clean-up issues that aren't unusual on a plat. The final three conditions that you see, 13, 14, and 15, one of which, 14, is a waiver request, which you should have in front of you in a nice harvest gold color. In conjunction with that waiver request and the attachments, there'll be another handout, it's the same color, but it's separate. And it is the minutes from a Board of Adjustment action when this school was approved on this property. And we've provided that to you as supplemental information. We have also provided to you the Board of Adjustment plan so you can get a close-up look at it, but you should have a copy of that. Felt that that would be easier for you to see, along with putting it up on the screen should we need to do that. The final three conditions are related to both the Board of Adjustment action and the request for the waiver. And the waiver request- Here you gotta go. The waiver request, very simply, is not to construct the cul-de-sac here. And as I know you all are aware, our subdivision requirements require proper street terminations or continuity. In this case, they've requested... ... a waiver to not construct, again, this cul-de-sac. There are three lots, this one, this one and this one that front on this stub. You can see, again, on the bigger picture of the area, here are those lots and the stub. And here's the loop system that exists in the area. Staff, in reviewing the waiver request, consulted with fire, traffic and solid waste. They assured us that they felt that this waiver would have a negligible impact on the provision of services to the neighborhood. Uh, they also felt that based on the information they had and on the Board of Adjustment approved plan, that it would have a negligible impact on the property as well. Now, the Board of Adjustment did approve this conditional use with some conditions. And I've tried to highlight, you can see those, um, not on the plan that I gave you of the Board of Adjustment quite as much. It is in the supplemental information, but I've tried to highlight it here. They have approved a special use parking lot off of Arkroyal Way. They've required turn lane improvements on Stone Road into the proposed entrance and this is across from Big Run. They've required widening and standard improvements along Stone Road to hook up the sidewalk and the gutter and the improvements here with Chase Place and the improvements that were done here. The area that I've highlighted in pink is the remaining frontage. They have required to dedicate right of way along that frontage. This is also subject to a waiver request. It's part of the waiver request. They, they're requesting several waivers in the one, but it all relates primarily to the construction of a cul-de-sac and then what would be required improvements along this complete frontage. So that is the nature of the request. And again, I wanted to reiterate that the Board of Adjustment had reviewed this. They placed conditions on the plan, including these improvements, uh, that were deemed adequate to meet the demands that the school would place on the system and, uh, impact on the street system and the neighborhood. And staff, as you can see from looking at your waiver report, has recommended approval of the waiver subject to a condition that a pedestrian system be developed. And a pedestrian system that would, in effect, supplant a normal public system along this frontage, and that would connect Arkroyal Way and the Open Gates neighborhood to the school, as well as Chase Place, who is being connected to the school. And again, we recommended approval subject to that condition. The sidewalks along Stone Road, as I'm sure many of you are aware, are very much hit and miss. They're located in some places on one side, up here, particularly in front of KU, we've got them in Chase Place, and that's about it. They just don't exist in mer- in very many other locations, uh, along Stone Road. So it was staff s- conclusion that an alternate system, but some connection would be important in the approval of this waiver. And I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Mr. Penn. Tom, uh, the 12 acres in that lot, the b- the bigger picture, wil- will that eventually all be used by that one applicant? Yes, sir. And again, I would refer you, it's up here, to the Board of Adjustment plan. Okay. And I will, uh, well, I don't have it on the board. I walked over to the board. That's why ... Yeah. I was going to show it to you on the board, but if you look, as you can see, they show a buildable area of 55,000 square feet. Right. And that's the dotted area. I see it. The back area is open space and an area for recreation and other types activities, is how we understand the proposal. So there'll be no proposal for out lots or anything like that? Uh, not at this time. Should they wish to develop that area, they would have to go back to the Board of Adjustment. Are there any other questions? I, I did have one question, uh, Tom. Uh, as far as improvements, you said the w- the waiver is, waiver of required improvements along Stone, correct? Yes, sir. Are there any improvements any distance down Stone, or is it the entire length of the short ends and long section of Stone Road? I, I believe, if I understand your question, I'll clarify. These are going to be required per Board of Adjustment approval. There are improvements in front of the Chase Place neighborhood through here. This area where they're going to dedicate, if you approve the waiver, will not have any improvements. The only improvements will be the Board of Adjustment mandated improvements of the turn lane and this sidewalk. Although again, we are requesting that if you approve this, that they create an alternative system to serve as a pedestrian access in the area. Thank you for the clarification. Are there any other questions for Mr. Martin? Uh, Mr. Cravens? So there, there's a sidewalk, um, where these cars are stacked up here, this 49 car stack. Is that -- Yes, sir. In the -- in -- Is that what you think? On their property, along their driveway, they have an internal sidewalk. Yes, sir. Yeah. S- so you could come down Stone Road and walk through there instead of walking out on ... You could, yes, sir. And we would hope that they would create a system to complement that and provide connections to the neighborhood. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you, sir. Petitioner. And, and by the way, very quickly for the record, again, I did say the subdivision committee did recommend approval of the plan and staff recommends approval of the waiver. Thank you. One handout I wanna pass out... Thank you very much. I'm Dick Murphy, I represent, uh, Montessori Middle School and Community Montessori School. With me today is Janet Ashby, who's the administrator, has been for many years of, uh, Community Montessori School. Leith Ross is our engineer on the sec- of second row of Ross Tarrant Architects. And, uh, Katy Tooff, our development officer is with us as well today. Um, we're pleased to be here with the school. I wanna emphasize why we're here today, because I think that puts things in perspective. Um, we received approval of the plan which you have on the screen. That was approved August 2004 by the Board of Adjustment. And I remember it well 'cause I was representing Montessori School at that point. We'd had a four-month, uh, negotiation process with Open Gate Neighborhood Association and with the neighbors up here who abut Arkroyal Way. And we had, uh, we actually worked things out finally with the neighborhood association before we went to the Board of Adjustment hearing. And then we had approximately a one-hour or longer hearing at the Board of Adjustment just to deal with the exact same issues that are being raised for you today. And the Board of Adjustment members were very concerned about the, uh, concerns to the neighborhood, the safety concerns of the school, and they imposed, I think, 12 or 14 conditions on us, all of which the school is complying with. Uh, now, this was approved by the Board of Adjustment for two schools, Montessori Middle School and Community Montessori School. That's the elementary school. Many of you all know, uh, the elementary school is now on Crestwood Road, uh, and the, uh, Albany Road, Jeslin Drive area. Uh, middle school is a off-site at a- at a church at this point. And at the present time, the Montessori school wants to build the middle school on the property and the elementary school will follow as funding follows. They have the funding worked out for the middle school and they're actually ready to break ground tomorrow if- if this gets approved for the middle school. So we're building just one of the schools right now on the property. The second school will follow, y- as soon as funding is worked out on that, but that'll be a few years. Now, the reason we're actually here is because looking at the screen, you can see down here, this is on the Board of Adjustment plan, this is a white frame house which is currently on the property. And as you can see, we showed a potential parking area there where the house was. These are some outbuildings there. There's two other houses on the property down toward the corner which are not in as good condition and they're gonna be removed. Now, the ... since we're only doing the middle school, we don't need to build all that parking area and we can design it so the parking area's not necessary. And Janet Ashby is living in this white frame house right now, which is real good because she keeps a very sharp eye on the property out there. And the school right now has school activities out there. One reason they got the property was because of the stream going through the middle of it. And as you all know, Montessori schools are very hands-on, active school and they have the stream there and they can do studies of the ecosystem and that sort of thing in the stream. So they ... the stream here, i- interestingly enough and the floodplain was an attractive reason for the Montessori Middle School to locate on this property. The buildings will be on the south side of the creek here. They will have play areas and some ecological study area on the north side of the creek toward the subdivision here. As you can see we're showing two pedestrian footbridges across the street- stream to reach that, but the buildings and the construction is gonna be on the south side of the creek. Now, we came in t- with the plans and the building inspection noticed that we had a parking lot shown where this- this house was and we wanna keep the house. So we were told, and I think probably reluctantly on behal- on the part of building inspection, but we- we were told if we wanna get a pilmer- building permit right away, we have to tear down the house. Well, we don't wanna tear down the house, we wanna keep the house because we have the ability to keep it standing. So to do that we need to file this subdivision plat which you see in front of you, which is the ... we're creating a lot, the purpose of which is so that we can keep that house standing. That's the only reason we're here. All the other issues were addressed by the Board of Adjustment and then we agreed to do turning lanes, we agreed to do the sidewalk front of the school and make that connection there, um, we'd agreed to do a number of other things, and also we agreed not to build a cul-de-sac and not to supply a connection at Arkroyal Way. And, uh, what I handed out to you was... ... was a letter. This is a letter from four years ago when we were negotiating this with the Open Gates Neighborhood Association. The representative of the association was not able to be here today, but they did tell us we could tell you they are fully in support of the same position they had four years ago. They support the Montessori school very much, but they want it with the same conditions which the Board of Adjustment approved in 2004, in which we have, uh, done our budgeting and finance based upon those conditions which were approved back then. If you, um, this, what I passed out to you was a letter from John Driscoll, who lives on Arkroyal Way we- in, right at the end here, and signed by a number of the other people who live in close, close proximity to Arkroyal Way, approximately ten homeowners there. And on page two, they said they would support us if the following conditions are written as a part of the conditional use, which they were. Number one, the gate at Arkroyal Way will be closed and locked during normal school hours, except for property maintenance, mowing, mulching, tree trimming, access utilities. And we agreed what I wrote in there, "And special events and not used for deliveries." And second, the gate at Arkroyal will be a full-height gate connected to a fence rather than a barrier that only blocks cars to eliminate walk-throughs when gate is closed. Now we agreed with the neighborhood association on those conditions. And I have, um, the minutes of the Board of Adjustment meeting. I can give those to you. These are the minutes. Um, my highlighting may have defeated the purpose because it is blocking out the wording. But as you can see on condition three, we agreed to improvements to Stone Road, as the staff had mentioned. Um, four, we agreed to dedicate additional right-of-way for Stone Road 'cause it was mentioned that the government may want to widen that at some point. Uh, going over to the next page, the, um, I'm just hitting the highlights. There, there were 14 conditions originally. Um, nine, we had to do a, uh, storm water management plan, which we're gonna do. Ten, we had the 25-foot floodplain buffer. Um, 11 was reworked and it's down in the middle of the page, and here's how it was passed by the Board of Adjustment. It said, "Access to the special events parking area at the end of Arkroyal will be gated with a full-height gate." That's not my emphasis, that's their emphasis, "With the gate to be open only during special school-related events and for property maintenance. The gate shall remain closed during routine daily school activities and after the completion of any special events. The school shall take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the end of Arkroyal Way is not used as a drop-off or pick-off..." excuse me, "... pickup area for students." And, um, th- that was adopted as the condition, new condition 11 that the board, board acted upon, um, which we agreed with and the neighborhood agreed with and the board was comfortable with as well. Um, the concern we have is, um, like I said, we're, we're, f- we have no quarrel with the road improvements which we agreed to, which the staff is recommending and the other items. And, uh, the, the neighborhood was very concerned about Arkroyal Way for a couple reasons. One is they didn't want there to be any possibility that parents would scoot in here in the morning and drop their child off and then the dr- child would then come over and walk the bridge across the stream to get into the building. And that will not happen anyway because the, um... I wasn't real familiar with Montessori schools before I started working with them about six years ago, but I have found they are extremely strict and they are extremely strict because they can back it up. Because if you don't follow the rules, you get kicked out of the school. It's a private school. They have a system where, of course, that you're entering here and coming out here, a one-way system under the plan that was up there, and a representative of the school has to see the child when the child first puts their foot out of the car and see the child all the way into the building. So the only way they do that is to allow parking with a adequate stacking distance, as we discussed, out here and they get on in here. There will be absolutely no pickup or drop-off there. And the neighborhood was concerned that if there were a cul-de-sac that that would lead to undesirable activities after dark taking place on a deserted cul-de-sac, and they did not want a deserted cul-de-sac there after hours. They wanted it gated off because they did not want people coming down here and parking to go to a school event, parking on the street in front of their houses to go to a school event down in that field or that sort of thing, and they did not want a lot of d- different activity going on during the day. From our standpoint as a Montessori school, and as any school, here is the issue. It's 10 o'clock in the morning, and Janet Asby, Ashby, who keeps an eagle eye on the property at all times, spots a stranger out here in the field, and they have hopefully eventually the elementary school kids out here playing, a middle school class out here in the stream. That presents a problem at the school. And I know, uh, schools today are not like schools when I was growing up when I'd walk to school and I'd meander around and go all ov- all over the place and go home, and there's a lot more security concerns. I know public schools have to have lockdown plans so that the entire school can be locked up when there's a threat and that happens. ... uh, m- Montessori school is no different. They have to have security on the property because they have a big open space here, which they wanted to have for school activities. They want to be able to have that and keep that open. But with a big open space, they have to have security back there. We were required to put a full-height fence along here, because neither we nor the neighbors wanted to have random access in and out. Now, I talked to Janet before the meeting today. We don't have problems with neighborhood people using the trails after hours or during the evening. We're not trying to make this an island and not allow anybody to enjoy the open space. The problem is during school hours, and, um, I know that's an issue at every school, and that's an issue here. We can't have a public trail going through the schoolyard. I don't think the Fayette County Public Schools would allow that. I don't think anybody would allow that for a school activity. We understand the goal of getting people out of their houses and walking everywhere. To be honest, there's not a lot down here unless they're going to go to one of the wareho- many warehouses down on Gold Rush Road, which is down here. There's, there's not a big destination down here. There's not a place to w- not... But we understand the goals for that, but I think at some point the, those goals have to give away to the equally important public goals of providing a secure school environment for all the students that are there. And that's why the, the, we worked it out. It was difficult. We had a lot of negotiations back and forth with the association four years ago, and the association actually had negotiations back and forth with the members who were living here. Some of, they weren't in agreement on all issues, and they came to agreement on all issues. They came to agreement with us on that. And we hoped we wouldn't be in this position because we wouldn't even be having this conversation if we, we would agree to bulldoze that house. I mean, we'd just be going under the rules that the Board of Adjustment set for us when we were approved, and we, which we budgeted for and understand and turn lanes and sidewalks and all that sort of thing. We'd be going under those rules if we didn't want to keep that house up. But, uh, having the house there is very good. Janet's there. She provides a watchful eye over the property. Uh, she'll be there when s- when the school is built, to be there, and it's very, I think, helpful not only for the school but to the ne- to the neighborhood to have her living here. Uh, so I guess in summary, and I'll, Janet may want to talk to you here about, in a, in a second too. I think she, you, she'll be getting up, but we agree with the waiver conditions or the, the reasons for approval of the waiver, and of course, we requested the waiver. Um, the, the condition A is a little troublesome because we are to, required to provide an internal pedestrian system constructed to provide connectivity to the school, that's no problem, and the neighborhood. Well, the question is whether if it's up there, that's a problem at, at Arkroyal Way to the approval of the pedestrian planner and division of traffic engineering in accord with the conditions associated with the Board of Adjustment its approval. Now, I don't have a problem with that because the Board of Adjustment approval said there'd be no connection here. And as long as the people who we need to negotiate with understand that and agree with that, I don't think we have a problem with that. We just needed to discuss this to clarify that because there has been discussion with the staff about requiring a connection there, which would be in violation of the Board of Adjustment conditions of approval. We don't want to be in a condi- state where we are going back on what we agreed to with the neighborhood association. We don't want to be in a situation where we're going back and taking an end run around Board of Adjustment approval conditions 'cause they were concerned about this. They did hear all these concerns, and we did agree to do a number of public improvements. I haven't emphasized what we're doing for turn lanes and that sort of thing 'cause I don't want to take up your time with that, but we have agreed to, to do a lot of that. Uh, but we want to abide by the Board of Adjustment conditions of approval, and we want to provide a safe and secure environment for the students here. Janet, did you want to say a few words here or just wait till, if there's any questions? If there's any questions, I can answer them. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Uh, are there any questions for Mr. Murphy from Commission? Okay. I- Is there anyone in the audience, uh, that would like to speak to this application? Okay, seeing none. Staff, do you have any, any comments? Okay. Mr. Murphy, you have anything additional you'd like to add? Okay, we'll, uh, close this portion of the hearing and, uh, turn it over to the Commission for any comments. Any comments from the Commission? Mr. Penn? Uh, I, I guess, Mr. Murphy, I'm, I'm confused. Uh, if the Board of Adjustment, if, if you interpret the Board of Adjustment that the, uh, pedestrian, uh, access or provis- connectivity, that's provision A, is it your position that, uh, that the Board of Adjustment did not require that or would not want that? I mean, how, how, how should I interpret what you said versus what, what number A says? Well, A says... The problem I have is making sure we're all on the page, staff and I are on the same page the way we interpret that. I understand. I interpret that by saying that when we have connectivity, we have an existing plan where we're going to have a sidewalk through here, and we agreed at the Board of Adjustment that we, public could use that sidewalk coming in front of the building rather than having a sidewalk along Stone Road. ... and that's safer. If you've been on Stone Road, you, you don't want a sidewalk two feet away from the edge of that road with the traffic coming through here. It's much safer for everybody concerned, so we agreed with that. Now, and we're gonna have a... some mulch trails for our students on both sides of the stream as well with the bridge, so we can get it along through there. And if that is interpreted in accordance with what we have a plan of, I don't have any problem with condition A. Now, I have a problem with condition A if it's interpreted to say, "We have to have a sidewalk or a trail connecting up with Arcroyal Way." And the reason I'm... To be honest about it, the reason I'm bringing this to your attention is because I have a sneaking suspicion that the staff interprets this condition to say we have to connect to Arcroyal Way. Um, and we interpret it to say we do not have to connect and should not connect to Arcroyal Way because of those agreements in the Board of Adjustment. So that's, that's why I made this presentation to you. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Mr. Cravens? I- is the sidewalk, um, along the, um, I guess the aisle where they drive in, is that going to be in an easement? No. It's, it's a... it's part of the private property. We don't want a permanent easement there in case it has to shift at some point on there. Then we've got a public easement right through the middle of the property. But, so how can the- But- ... public access that? We had, we had said at the Board of Adjustment they could on that. I mean, yeah, but you're saying... I mean, there's all kinds of things been said, but how... you know, after we leave here and, and, uh... I mean, if somebody wants to come down Stone Road and walk across that, and then they decide, well, for security, they're going to put gates up and fence the whole property and all that. I mean... Janet Ashby is the administrator. You know, uh, that's, uh, a very good question. I think that we moved into the neighborhood thinking that we really wanted to be a part of the community and, um, trying to even plan a walking trail around the property so that, uh, after hours and in summer months that the neighborhood could come and use that as long as... as well as our parents and alumni. Uh, the question that you just asked about, can they access in front of the building and would we have gates up? Gates have not something that we've talked about. It's not, uh, been in any of the plans, and ah, Laith, you can speak to that more than I have, but we've never talked about having a gate that we would lock up at either end, entrance or exit, uh, at this time. So... I, I, I guess if it's- The sidewalk... If I may address that. Yes. Th- th- excuse me, excuse me. Sorry. Can we get your name and... I'm Laith Ross with Ross & Ross Architects. Okay, thank you. Sorry. Um, the, the sidewalk is at the front of the school. The sidewalk is at the front of the school, where it can be monitored. Um, what they wanna control is with Montessori schools, and... the, the entire property is... they look at that as being the classroom. There is nothing outside on the property that's not considered a classroom. So obviously, they're not gonna do classroom... and I, I wish that drawing was up with a development plan, ah, from the front of the school to Stone Road, but from the school to the back property line, to the north property line, that is educational area. And that is an area that they do want to control access to. What happens in front of the school, you know, it's an open drive. Anybody can pull in there, anybody can go down that walk, but they wanna control access to where the students will be on a daily basis. And that's, that's how we designed it, and that's how we, uh, intended for the property to, to be occupied. I, I guess, in, in my opinion, they're not have... I had the same situation in a development I did, and yeah, they let me not widen the road and everything, but I had to put a sidewalk through there in an easement so that the public couldn't access it. And I mean, you can't just go on private property without a, an easement through there. Yeah, I guess it's... How I envision... I, I live across the street from a public elementary school and it has a sidewalk right in front of the school and it's always open. People walk through there, walk dogs and all that sort of thing after hours, and the Montessori school plans on keeping it open, like, much like an elemen- a, a public elementary school does. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Ms. Phillips, you have a question? Um, I was wondering if there's gonna be a sidewalk from where the, the entrance from Stone Road, from the, um, vertical... yeah. Is there gonna be sidewalk running north of that point? No, the Board of Adjustment did not require a sidewalk there because there's no sidewalk up here. There's nothing to, nothing to connect to along Stone Road at that point. But there is sidewalk at Chase Place. Yes. And there will be sidewalk in front of the existing residence? Yes, yes. Coming on, coming on down to this entrance point right there. Is there sidewalk going towards Clays Mill? Yes. Beyond Chase Place? Well, I know there's one all the way on Chase Place. I don't know- I think it's only in front of Chase Place. We think it's only in front of Chase Place, but that gives access to the Chase Place people to come on down to the property. Are there sidewalks up on Arcroyal? Um, well, we... Let's see. I can tell you that. Yes. Both sides, one side? I'll put the picture up. Appears they're both sides. So will the, will the perimeter of this property be fenced except for... Will there be a fence at all? There's, there's a fence along this- This will lack- ... this rear property line. ... and the intended one they- Excuse me, if you could come forward, it's, we, we have to record all of our proceedings, so- I keep it on. ... that's why it's important. Thank you. There's, uh, right now, there is a fence all along the north property line, and when phase two's constructed down here, we had intended on bringing a fence, because of the, uh, the preschool playground that's gonna be located on that end, and tying that off to, uh, the end of the building at that point. So the preschool playground's secured at that point, and when the rest of this is developed, all of that, that connection there would be made. Right now, there is a, there's a fence up here. Uh, we would also be fencing back on this end as well. You can see along Stone Road here, this is sort of more B4 type uses along there too. Thank you, are, are there any other questions for Mr. Roth or Mr. Murphy? Yes? I- from what I'm hearing, this is only a drive and deliver your child school. Is that right? That's what you all are proposing? Yes. There would be no walking? Mm-hmm. At- She's shaking her head no, just for the record. Okay. Got a frog in my throat. Um, at Mary Queen of the Holy Rosary and Lexington Catholic, m- do they have fenced yards that separate them from Southland Park? Do they have this security issue up there? Not that I can say. We, we just don't know the answer to that. Well, I was driving the neighborhood last night, and it looked to me like wide open. I mean, Hopalong Cassidy could ride his horse through there. Uh, what are the proposed activities on the back area? We're suffering because we don't have a master plan. Um, on th- this end here, that will be where most of our playground will be, and- Excuse me, I'm just wondering if staff could put, maybe post this to where the applicant could direct us. Okay. Different. Can you point to it? Okay, now, we're talking across the creek now, right? Okay. Okay. This area here, that's where we're going to have eventually some play structure for our elementary students, not our preschool, kindergarten, but elementary, when we build that part of the building. The other portion of the land has been set aside, it's about two and a half acres, and that's where the children will be working with UK on some farms that they're going to be doing and a sustainable farming and blackberries and stream ecology, archaeology digs. All those w- are, are... That part there is our environmental classroom, environmental sciences. So our sciences will be, for the most part, outdoors, which is why we decided to go ahead and do the middle school portion of the building first, because those students are the ones who utilize the environmental sciences. Uh, with that, we've already done beehives, and they built the bridges and they've, um, worked with, uh, the c- water company on the stream ecology, done some archaeological d- digs, they've got their blackberries going, they've... Uh, so all that is happening, but we're wasting time transporting the children from where they are to the land. So that's why we want to build the middle school portion now. But that is, in, for our point of view, a classroom. And that means that small groups of children, maybe six at a time, could be anywhere on that back two and a half acres, certainly with a, an adult. We won't left them back there by their self, but we, we don't want an opportunity for someone to just be walking around, wandering around while the students are out there working on the land and doing their farming. Um, right now, at our school, uh, we've got three or four people who greet the child the moment there's footsteps on campus and it really... I just don't even want an opportunity for a child to get on this campus, come through the backyard, go around play guards and fences is whatever before I know that that child's there. So when you say is it, uh, drive up and drop off, it would be unless there was a parent, you know, uh, who lived in Chase Place, or I don't know, that might walk their child to our front door, but it would not be something, and I probably would counsel any parent if they lived in the neighborhood to make sure they brought their child to school, drop them off so that we know that child's there and that they're safe and in our custody when the parent leaves. So you're saying that children will not be allowed to bike to this school? Uh, if they bike to the school, then we will have them coming through the front entrance and we have a bike rack for them. Okay. We'll have it that way. Maybe this is for the designer. Is there gonna be a fence from both corners of the building, over and around so you cannot access the back of the property from the front of the school? When the f- when the full, when both schools are con- are constructed, we had intended on sealing off, and over here, it'd probably be back behind the, the house. Over here, it's along the front and then up the side to tie into the existing fences back there. So yes, we... We design -- M- my firm does -- probably 98% of our work is, is school-related. That's basically all we do. And security, security is the number one hot issue, uh, especially classroom security. Montessori's a very unique program in the fact that their outdoors is a classroom area. They're outside, th- the agricultural areas, the stream areas, they utilize those as outdoor classroom areas. So when you look at school security, you have to take it outside the walls of the building. And, um, so it's, it's a very unique situation for us. Uh, most of our work is private school or public school. Do you imagine a six-foot chain link fence or just a... No, I, we're not looking at six foot. We'd probably be looking at more like a, just a, a 60-inch, five foot, uh, maybe a 48-inch, uh, across the front. Now, across the back, um, it would match whatever is already there, uh, which I believe it might be a s- it might be a six foot across the back. Okay. The ... So if I'm understanding this right, there could still be access from Mark Royal, you would just have a little bit more fence expense and you could still have your garden secure, um, because you would just fence both sides of the sidewalk if the sidewalk ex- was extended to the school. Well, the sidewalk, right now, because of the grade change through there, if we were to put one, it wouldn't be an ADA-accessible sidewalk. It would have to have a stair. So that's gonna eliminate, uh, that would eliminate bikers. Um, could we do that? You know, we had not intended on doing that, uh, because there is some cross-connectivity, uh, across the back. Mm-hmm. Uh, back and forth through there. So i- in doing so, we'd have to have lockable gates and unlock the gates and, and try to, to have our own inter-campus connectivity. But it would be possible? I'd, I'd be ... I, yeah. Anything like that would be possible. Okay. To an extent. Pro- we're now, under the board, no matter how you rule today, under the Board of Adjustment guidelines, we're not allowed to have students coming back from Mark Royal because it violates the conditions of approval of the Board of Adjustment and we can be taken to court if we, if we violate those. Well, that was a 2004 agreement, and this ... We have a mandate from the, or a- my interpretation of a mandate from the comprehensive plan. Would you throw that up, please, Barbara? And provide ... It's all through the comprehensive plan, and this plan was not in effect in 2004, so the question is, is do you grandfather in or do we go with what the comprehensive plan says, which is promote human-scale bicycle and pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods? And then it goes and talks further on the next two or three pages on semi-public spaces or community spaces are part of that goal. Ms., Ms. Copeland, I'm gonna ask legal, what, what latitude do we have, I guess, with regards to condit- the Board of Adjustment ruling of '04 versus what we're looking at today and do we have any latitude to, uh, detour from that? You, I do not believe, have the authority to change the conditions of the Board of Adjustment. If you approve this with conditions that conflicted, um, they would not be able to comply with your conditions until and unless they went back to the Board of Adjustment and had them amend their conditions. Then, if the Board of Adjustment is not willing to amend their conditions because the entire neighborhood comes in and objects, they're basically gonna be put in an impossible situation. Right. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Penn. Tom, uh, I guess it's time for you to explain to us what A means. Um. Yeah. "Provision for the alternate pedestrian system, provide ca- connectivity at the greater level for the public safety for pedestrians that currently exist on Stone Road." It's, um, not a sneaking suspicion whatsoever that we are concerned about connectivity to both neighborhoods to open gate. That is a concern of ours and that was the basis for that condition, that overall connectivity be looked at and hopefully something be developed. Mr. Chairman, I've got a question for them. Yes, Tony. Um, d- did, but the neighborhood that's up there doesn't want that. Correct? That's my understanding. I ... Okay. Thanks. Thank you. Are there any other questions for, uh, Mr. Martin? Mr. Murphy, did you have one thing you wanted to add? Yeah. If you can put up those Board of Adjustment minutes from 2004. First page. Move up there. Up, no, up to the middle of the page. Other direction. Keep going down. I need, I need the, the, where the caption is on the, on that page, Barbara. No, sa- the page you were on, the same page you're on. Go back. Just pull it down so we can see the very, where it says Community Montessori School. Okay, there you go. This was the -- I understand the staff's concern, but here is the staff report from 2004, and we, we involved everybody with this. Look at this line right here. It says, "Adquate off-street parking will be provided with the special events parking lot at the end of Arkroyal Way to be gated so that access can be controlled and limited appropriately." And that was the staff recommendation, uh, at that point, and, and I understand there's different staff members involved in this and all that sort of thing, but it was studied at that point, and, and the staff had a lot of input from the Open Gates Neighborhood Association. The only other thing I'd want to remind you, getting back to basics here, is the only reason we're here is because we wanted to keep that white house up. We don't want, didn't want to have to demolish that white house. There. Mr. Moritz, just- Thank you. ... for clarification on this, then. W- the way I read the staff recommendations is it's contingent upon it being in accord with the conditions associated with the Board of Adjustment's approval, which clearly, as you just read, indicates it's going to be gated. Yes. So I can understand why you see there's a, some gray area. To me, it seems pretty clear. So if, if there's a way that we need to clarify that as far as making a motion and moving forward, let's do that, but it says in the staff's recommendation it's going to be in, in accord with the Board of Adjustment's approval. Okay, and you ready to make a motion, Mr. Brewer? I'm, sure. I'm ready to make a motion. Make a motion. Okay, let's see how to make this motion. Um, where are we... I'd like to make a motion, Mr. Chairman, for approval of plan 2008-128F, Community Montessori, with the associated conditions and based upon the recommendations of staff, um, and clearly stating that this is to be in accord with the Board of Adjustment's approval. Okay, are you also adopting the findings for the waiver of the Land Subdivision Regulations? I, I, I am. For the reasons provided by staff? For the reasons provided. Okay. Did I get that right? Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second, um, to approve plan 2008-128F, Community Montessori School, for the conditions, with rep- requisite conditions, um, as well as adopting the findings of fact, I'm sorry, the findings of the land, waiver of the Land Subdivision Regulations, uh, for plan 2008-128F for the reasons provided by staff. Um, all those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." No. Can we take a poll? Mr. Holmes. Aye. Ms. Richardson. No. Mr. Day. Mr. Penn. No. Mr. Owens. No. Ms. Phillips. Mr. Cravens. No. Ms. Copeland. No. Mr. Brewer. Aye. Mr. Vaughn. Yes. Four ayes, six nos. Okay, motion failed. Thank you. So problematic. I know. Is there an alternate motion out there? No, not that I can remember. I'd like to, though. I'd like to, though. Um, Mr. Chairman, um, I move, I move to approve plan 2008-128F, uh, for the reasons provided by staff, not to include granting the waiver. Don't, don't- C- Could you repeat that again, Ms. Phillips? I, I think- Um, I would move to approve the plan, um, for the reasons provided by staff, but not to approve the waiver. Second. 'Kay, we have a motion to approve, uh, plan 2008-128F, uh, with conditions and not adopting the finding, not adopting the waiver to the Land Subdivision Regulations. We have a motion and a second, I believe. Um- Could you explain what that means, then? What, what do they, what are they supposed to do or not do, based on that? Yeah, I think we need to- Well, I think, I think we need to, uh, look at the, the waiver itself was to, um, the, the improvements, the street improvements, so I guess we would have to ask staff to what extent, if you could offer clarification, to what street improvements we're talking about. 'Cause what we were adopting- ... the findings were to a, a waiver of the, uh, land subdivision regulations, and in this case, it would be providing a full-cross, or, or half cross-section on that side of the property, if I'm correct. Yes, sir. Thank you. You would be- To get all the clarification. The waiver is a request to not build, so if you don't grant the waiver, they would have to build a cul-de-sac, and they would have to do full improvements along any area where those improvements are not already required by the Board of Adjustment. But, T- Tom, the, the, the petitioner does not want a cul-de-sac. The neighborhood does not want a cul-de-sac either, correct? That is my understanding. Yes, sir. May, may I, Mr. Chairman? May I amend my motion? Uh, yes, you may. Yes. Second. I had to get his permission. Okay. Um- We have a motion to amend. Second. ... I'm, I'm, I'm not sure of the mechanics, the legal mechanics of how to do this, but I'd like to amend the motion to, um, allow that portion of the waiver to not require the cul-de-sac, okay? However, the other street improvements, including the sidewalk along the Stone Road boundary, um, and other said improvements would still be required. Second. Okay. We have, um, we have a motion to amend the, um, the adoption of the findings for the wa- land waiver of the land subdivision regulations to not construct a cul-de-sac, but do the f- the half full, the half cross-section street improvements along Stone Road. We will have to withdraw our subdivision request. We cannot afford to do the Stone Road improvements and build a school. We withdraw our subdivision request. Okay. Do we need to, uh, take a motion on that withdrawal, Long? Once the hearing has started, yes, I think you need to accept the withdrawal. Okay. Uh, I'm sorry, do, do we need to take a motion on that also? Motion and a vote? Yes. Okay. You need to just, uh, just a motion to accept the applicant's withdrawal. Okay. Um- Does it take precedence? It does not. Withdrawing, to withdraw the motion. No, I mean, I guess- That takes precedence. The, the motion on the floor was to vote in adopting of, I guess, your, uh, finding. So we'll take a vote on that first, okay? The motion on the floor was to ada- uh, accept the plan, uh, as recommended by staff with the conditions, and then adopting the findings with, with the cons- not, not construction of the cul-de-sac, but the full street improvement, so is everyone clear on that vote we're about to take? Okay, all those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." No? Okay. Motion carries. Are you going to withdraw? M- Mr. Murphy, you still want us to accept? Okay. Mr. Penn? I move to accept the af- applicant's motion to withdraw. Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second to, uh, accept the applicant's request for withdrawal. All those in favor, say, "Aye." Aye. All opposed, say, "No." Motion carries. Thank you. Here's the thing, we didn't do this the other day at the... Next item appears on page four. This is DP2008106 Securo Justice, Unit 6, Polo Club Center. This is an amended final dov- development plan to revise the development, the proposed development and to add a 3224 square foot bank, 1400 space in retail, and to revise the parking layout. This property is located just, um, at the corner of Man O' War and Polo Club Bou- Boulevard, right behind the Rite Aid that we've had developed there in the corner. The tech, technical and staff recommended disapproval with the five conditions as you see listed, but we have, we have reviewed the conditions and the fifth condition can now be re- re- removed, so it's only the first four conditions. When this plan was presented to the subdivision committee, they asked that this be re- um, referred to the full commission for your approval. Okay? And I was gonna say, and Tom Martin's got the EAMP report for you. Thank you, Ms. Call. Are there any questions for Cheryl? Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, you have an EAMP compliance report. You have a lot of these things of this color today, and it's -- it's here. Uh, in reviewing the proposed plan, and staff, and to ensure its compliance with the EAMP, uh, first of all, uh, here is Polo Club Boulevard, and the EAMP does require collector streets in those major highway facilities, and it has been built. In -- in this regard, they comply. The sewers that will serve this development are in place. They were built with Gleneagles, and it does comply with that portion of the EAMP as well. Uh, and the drainage facilities will be part of the regional plan that our expansion areas have been developed with -- with those facilities in mind. And again, the infrastructure component of this plan, as they propose it, is meeting the infrastructure requirements of the EAMP. The land use and future land use requirements of the EAMP, it is also meeting. It is meeting it because of the requirement that this be a mixed use, with a percentage of housing. Uh, the housing units exceed the minimum percentage, which is 40%. In this case, the square footage is 43%, so staff has found that, in that regard, it also meets the requirements of the EAMP. The staff does have concerns with its compliance with the community design portion of the EAMP. Now, the EAMP, when it was developed in the CC sections, and this is a CC section as well as this area over in here is the -- is a much larger portion of CC area, that was developed with the idea that we would have, uh, more compact, small town-oriented developments, uh, pedestrian-friendly, and along that nature. When this plan was originally approved, we found that that element was just minimally being complied with in that we got this large Rite Aid here, and at that time, we had some community space. The provision of public and private community space is an important component of the CC. And when we reviewed this plan, both the approved one and this, uh, submitted, uh, revision, uh, amendment, we became concerned because part of the compliance that we found on the original plan was because it was integrated by that vehicular connection with the overall, and that we had hoped that the overall development of this CC would function as a whole. And that was the goal of -- of the EAMP, that they do that. Um, they have, I would point this out, offered these spaces. And this is a revision from the previous plan. They were broken up, and they've tried to combine these -- these spaces, the patios, the public space, and they have oriented it to the greenway, which, again, is one of those things we do look for. And -- and I will say that they've attempted to meet that aspect of the community design element. But again, they've dropped this in, and you can see the bank proposal with the drive-through facilities is, uh, very suburban in nature. And it's very difficult to incorporate that into the CC design element. And in that, uh, oh, I would like to point out, too, there's a force main easement, sewer easement here, as well as a KU easement, and it's a transmission line. KU is constructing a substation here, and that presents a very real conflict with the building. Now, I'm sure, as you all know, there's ways to address those. This plan has not done so as yet, so that also raises a concern for us with the design element, uh, and how they would meet those requirements of the EAMP. The conclusion is, again, that staff believes that this plan does meet the future land use and the infrastructure components, but however, it does not meet the community design elements of the EAMP, and, uh, therefore, we are recommending disapproval of the plan for the reasons you have in your report. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Are there any questions? Um, Mr. Holmes? I -- I have one of Tom. So is it -- is it an issue, the -- the drive-in bank, and where -- where is the drive-in bank in relation? Mr. Holmes, this is the proposed drive-in bank in this area. Currently, what's approved is the Rite Aid, the gas station, and these, uh, townhouses, and this building. On the current plan, there's a large retail building proposed in this area, right up in here. Is it -- so the -- that one long building, is -- is that retail? That- Yes, sir. This is retail. They basically broke that, uh -- uh, pardon me. There's another one right here on the approved plan, and they have s- they have altered those locations to here and here in order to place the bank here in the center, and because of the access, as you can see, coming in, and because of the Rite Aid, there's that- Right. ... and the drive-through, that's what's created that -- that particular design situation. So is it the element of the drive-through aspect of the banking that sort of creates that, or is it sort of a neighborhood banking, um, concern? Well, banking, of course, is an approved use- Right. ... as would -- and -- and -- and obviously there, but it is that -- that drive-through and -- and the demand for that that kinda creates a hole in the plan, as it were. Mr. Cravens, you had a question? Yeah. Did -- did you say the reason that, um- ... for disapproval was it didn't connect to the other ... There was no con- connection over to the other land beside it? That is our largest concern, yes, sir, about how this area will function. Our previous approvals were based on the fact that we felt that there was the potential to combine these two areas and have them function overall within the CC concept, the community design concept. Tom, do we have a copy of the one that we originally approved when we were just doing the Rite Aid? Uh, yes, sir. I do believe we have one in the file. Could we see that? Mm-hmm. Forgive the delay. There were several color ups in the file and- Oh, no, not a problem. Thank you. ... this is the one. Uh, the currently approved plan, Mr. Day, again, here's the Rite Aid. Here is the retail building here and here. There's a plaza open space feature with a fountain here and, again, they had orientation to the greenway with these buildings. What I'm concerned about, is there, and I can't see real well from here, was there a connectivity a, a, a proposed end with it to go across there? Yes, sir. That was vehicular connection into this property. Again- And that's one we approved when we were doing the Rite Aid, nothing else was on there wasn't it? Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, Mr. Owens. Uh, Tom, if you would, um, uh, maybe on this map to the left, uh, right next or right below the bank where I guess that's the drive throughs for the bank, there's a white area, unshaded area, w- w- w- what's the significance of that? What is that? This? Yes. That's just green space. Green space? Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. Mm-hmm. Thank you. Are there any other questions for Mr. Holmes? Now, is, is there connectivity to the, on the, the proposed plan? I can't s- I can't see from... Uh, no, sir. In an effort to, I believe, increase their orientation to the greenway and provide public space, they enlarged this plaza area and took out this vehicular connectivity. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Are there any other questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you. Thank you, sir. Petitioner? It's a tough crowd today. My name's Al Gross with EA Partners. I'm here with Steve Richelle, Les Kimbrough, uh, Rob Mold with the Neighborhood Association, and Larry Re- Larry has gone. So, oh, Larry's here. Larry Reiden- Reidenhower who was, who was with the neighborhood group, uh, several years ago when this original plan was, uh, was approved by you folks. Uh, to help you get a better idea of what we're proposing, I'm gonna hand out a colored, uh, a colored plan of, uh, of the area that we have, we are proposing to change. And I wanna make sure that this is understood. I think it is. This development plan here, the one that was approved in '07, January of '07 was not only for the Rite Aid, but it was also for the retail facilities that set in behin- that sit in behind the Rite Aid. Also, the, uh, the office space for building C and the, and the townhouses. So it was for the entire area. And now we're proposing to change, or what we are proposing to change is basically everything that sits in behind Rite Aid. If you'll bear with me just a minute, I'm gonna put a, put a, uh, plan up that kinda gives you a, a, a, a view of the big picture so to speak. Hope you can see that. It's, uh, it's of a smaller scale than what you, what you have in front of you. What you have in front of you is this area right here. This is the Rite Aid that is constructed. That is the gas station convenience store that is constructed. This is a plan that, uh, representatives of, uh, a development, a development entity created for what we refer to as the Blackford CC area. Now this was ultimately withdrawn. ... uh, for any of, any of a number of reasons, but it, it, it, what it serves, the purpose it serves on this, on this plan is to show you in, in relative sense the size of this versus the size of this. And this is a much larger CC endeavor than, than, than is this. And it, it, it does provide flexibility because of its size, but it also, it, it also because of its size commands numerous access points. Uh, one here, one off Man O War Boulevard, one that was proposed through the T, TA area that Presbyterian Church used to own, and then this was also proposed as a connection across this greenway. Now, I know five of you have heard me talk about this twice now, and, uh, the last time I was in front of five of you at the subdivision committee, I made the following statement, and I, and I stand by it today, as do the developers. The issue of crossing that greenway with a road is not an issue. If the planning commission, the planning staff want that road placed to connect this CC area with this CC area, we'll be happy to, to, to incorporate that provision back into our plan. Now, with that said, I'm gonna put up a plan that shows how we would propose to make that connection, and then I'm gonna give you a little history as to why we eliminated it. And I hate to cover up the approved plan, but it's not very legible anyway, but it is, it is remarkably the same as the plan that we're proposing. Now, this shows a future connection, vehicular future connection into this Blackford CC area, this large CC area. Now, as we came out of the first subdivision committee meeting, we, we were left with the impression that we were creating a CC area that was not pedestrian-friendly, that was more vehicularly attuned than, than what, what those planning commission members and those staff members desired. So we sat down with staff, two of the staff members, and talked about how we could improve the plan. And one of the issues that was discussed was to perhaps make this an enclave, where this pass-through traffic from Polo Club Boulevard into the larger Blackford CC area would be disjointed, certainly not encouraged, and to create in and of itself a small community center area that could serve the needs of Blackford through the back door, and also what's, what we refer to as the Glen Eagles development. As a byproduct of that, we then expanded... As a byproduct of trying to make it pedestrian-friendly, we eliminated the access and we expanded some of the pedestrian common areas. And on the plan that you have in front of you, those areas are, are, are, are shown in red. And it's an expanded patio, uh, community area, if you will, that, that is, that, that integrates two of the, two of the detached retail, retail trade, uh, buildings, restaurants, uh, maybe it's somewhat similar to, uh, uh, to, uh, Regatta where you have an, an area, an outdoor par- patio area to eat and dine and mingle. So that was, that was the premise behind eliminating this vehicular access. And once we looked at it in the large scheme of things, it didn't seem to us that it was that important. And what we did think important was to have pedestrian access connecting the two centers, and that is a part of this proposal as well, a pedestrian access that crosses the greenway in an aerial fashion. Both of these developed facilities will be, will, will, will, will, will be up in the air relative to this greenway, so you could have a nice pedestrian bridge, pedestrian crossing, much like you have at the rear of, uh, Cumberland Hill, the Cumberland Hill neighborhood, the Cumberland Hill subdivision as it goes from the Cumberland Hill into Veterans Park. I had some pictures of that, that I showed the subdivision committee meeting. It's, it's, it... To me, that is the connection that is more appropriate here. However, during the course of the subdivision committee, the... I call him the fire chief, he wasn't really the fire chief, but he was someone that, uh, had a desire to see some connectivity vehicularly between this area and this area for emergency services, fire, etc., and, a- and basically that's, that's... If, if that is the guiding principle, if that's what this commi- if that's what this committee wants, if that's what, uh, th- the staff and this group want, then that can easily be accomplished with a, with a minimal elimination of this additional patio or community space. So I'm here to tell you that, as it relates to... ... one of the conditions on the staff report to deny this plan, that's, that's easily fixed. We'll be happy to provide space for the vehicular connection. Uh, again, I don't think it's, I don't think it's really called for in this instance, but if, if that's the, if that's what this group would like to have, this community would like to have, we'll be glad to provide for it. The driving force behind this amendment is to integrate the bank into this site. Uh, the bank brings some stability to it. You'll hear about that, uh, in a few minutes from the neighborhood association, uh, representative. Uh, the bank has integrated into its building, and this is important, a, an, an independent community center space for the use and benefit of these neighborhoods. And on the plan that I've handed you, you can see a li- little designation on either side of the front of the bank, uh, that, that is marked as a C with a circle around it. And that's a conference room on one side of the building, a kitchen and bath area on the other side of the building. It's independently accessible seven days a week, 24 hours a day. And I think that is a nice fit into this small, odd-shaped area to allow community... a, a place for the community to meet and carry on their community business. And I think, again, later you'll hear from Rob about that, and I think he can, he, he can talk about, about that in terms that, that, uh, that, that he, he understands or he appreciates. Uh, those things being said, I, I, I'll, I'll turn this over to others and, and would ask if you have any questions. Uh, uh, uh, again, this, this plan is remarkably similar to the plan that was approved back in January '07. If you put this vehicular connection on it, it is, it is virtually the same, granted it has a drive-through bank. If the staff was really worried about... Let me quote this exactly. "The loss of the vehicular connection prevents the integration of two CC properties that the staff believes is vital to integrate the character of the development. The location of the drive-through f- facility in the interior of the proposed development imposes a more suburban character." The suburban character is more imposed by the connection than it is a drive-through bank, in my opinion. However, I think both can exist in con- in conformity with, with the goals and, and objectives of, of the CC zone. Um, we've made an additional attempt to heavily landscape the area between the future bank, hopefully, and Man o' War Boulevard, in, in the hopes that that screening will prevent that vehicular use area that is in behind the bank serving the drive-through. Uh, hope- ho- hopefully that'll, that'll, that'll not been seen or observed from the public driving up and down Man o' War, and, and, and that, that, I think, is a, is a plus relative to, to some of the goals and objectives of, of the CC zone as it relates to screening and, and, and such along major arterials. Mr. Gross, I think we have a question from Mr. Cravens, if we can... Yeah, um, Al, um, number four on here, and this keeps coming up. I don't know if we've ever heard about how you're gonna handle it, but this K-U, um, this K-U thing, easement, I mean, you just run that around some other way, or what? Well, there's a K-U, there's a K-U easement. There's an overhead, overhead electric line that, that moves in this direction from a pump station, uh, uh, that, that sits down in this area. And there's also a, a fo- a sanitary sewer force main. Those facilities would most likely be... have to be relocated regardless of the plan, because there's an elevation, a third dimension to this. So, to say that our plan is going to cause that relocation, and only our plan is, is a little misleading. Now, in the... at the... at the end of June, I sat down with Joe Oakley, who's a Kentucky Utilit- excuse me, Kentucky Utilities representative, and we worked out a concept plan that shows how that relocation would work with the bank as it's placed on this plan. And I'll pass this out. And I only have one copy that shows Joe's proposed 30-foot easement. I'll let it go around first. But the other copies show the existing facility and a potential relocation that Joe and I talked about when we met in June. Have seen these? No, but they've heard me talk about them. And, and there's a note on there, there's a note on our plan th- that speaks to this as well. Uh, "Building A and the UE encroachments, they'll be resolved prior to building permit." We know we have to do that. You know, uh, in, in... And I've done this 100 times where we have utility conflicts, we work with the utility providers and get those conflicts removed. Need to make sure the stand is up. And I've tried to talk Mr. Oakley and KU into ... This, this is ... This, this connection is important to them because it serves Hamburg. And I, I know we've all heard about the Baptist Hospital proposal on Hamburg and the need to get great sources of electricity to them, and, and that's part of, that's part of, I think, the concern of KU. I've try... I've talked to Joe about this line being relocated down the greenway, a nice wide corridor that extends into Hamburg, that same greenway extends into Hamburg. And, and that is how service is provided to this pump station. It comes down this greenway from I-75. To me, it's a natural fit to keep following that and then backfeed whatever bank or whatever hospital proposal you have. But KU seems to think it important to keep this corridor open and, and serviceable. And what I, what I've given you, uh, shows, shows, uh, shows we'll, we'll, uh, we'll give 'em what they want. But I do think, uh, larger, uh, a larger view of it would, would relocate it down, down, down the greenway. But that'll continue to be a source of ... Uh, that, that'll continue to be something we have to work on. We've gotta, we've gotta, we've gotta satisfy them. They own that easement. They own the rights to that corridor, and, uh, we knew that was gonna be a problem. That's why I sat down with, uh, with 'em in June. And at that time, uh, it was, it was something that he felt we could work out. Thank you, Mr. Gross. So before you can, uh, I guess, get approved for construction, you'll ha- have to have your issue on KU worked out with- Absolutely. ... KU. Are there any other... Is that ... Does that complete your presentation? Tha- tha- that completes mine, yes. Yours? Okay. Are there any- If there are any questions. Are there any questions? Ms. Copeland? Yes. Where is trash? Where is trash collection? Right now, trash collection is proposed ... I'll point to, point to it right ... There's a dumpster location proposed here. There's a large three dumpster area existing right here behind the Rite Aid. Can we do it on the overhead? I think- Sure. Yeah. If we ... That's really farther over there. Right. Isn't it great that that's separated like that? Yeah. Trash ... Do we have, uh, something right here? Pardon? Well, they are green, aren't they? Dumpsters? They're green. Green. They're green dumpsters. They look like bushes. They look a little like bushes, but they're not. You see? Yeah. Here we ... Here we go, here we go with the magic pen, Mr. Gross. Steady, Steve. Got it. I won't, I won't do any better. Uh, let's see. There are the three dumpsters that currently exist. And the ... We are proposing two dumpsters there, and we hope to be able to negotiate with Rite Aid to consolidate the dumpsters away from here into this area. We don't really see the need for five dumpsters. I have one other question, Mr. Gross. How much of that open space would you lose with the vehicular connectivity? Well, uh, you can't see it very well right here, but it looks like you lose about half of it that, uh, that is on the, uh, let's just say the s- the, that is south of this 6,000 square foot building. We've had, we've had good discussions with the gentleman that owns this as well in the hopes of being able, if we are not required to put that vehicular access in, with the hopes of being able to integrate some of his area into, into, into- Yeah. ... open space and, and community service areas. Okay. Well, I, I just think that vehicular connectivity's important and, and I would like to see it. That's fine. Thank you, Mr. Holmes. Are there any other questions for Mr. Gross? H- How many others do you have as part of your presentation, I guess? Two. Two? Okay. Okay. We could keep our comments brief, but- I'm gonna, I'm gonna tender the sign affidavit as my last. Thanks, Al. For the record, I'm Steve Rochelle. I, I represent the applicant as well. I, I'm not gonna try to go over any- any- anything that Al's already talked about. At the beginning of this process, the first thing we did was to begin working with the neighborhood because this is a community center, center. It's a neighborhood center. It's small. Uh, and the last time we got involved in this process, we got a little bit ahead of ourselves and filed our plan before we met with the neighbors. But this time around, uh, we picked up from experience that we needed to meet with them and have them to buy in to our plan and to hear what their concerns were. And today, uh, we are fortunate to have Rob Mold, who is the acting president of the association. He has likewise has spoken to five of you at the subdivision committee meeting. He has some pretty compelling reasons, I believe, uh, why the neighborhood supports this application. Uh, before I introduce him and, and bring him up, I als-, uh, I did wanna point out, and I hope we'll dwell on this, the applicant is ha- will put the road through. That's fine. We just thought it was a better planning way not to do it to get more open space and to have an enclave small development, because this is a very awkward piece of land, triangular in nature, and it's not a grand scale CC, but we will absolutely do what you all want to d- do about the road. Uh, but the, the second thing that I hope you will keep in mind is, we're not asking for one more square foot of space, of retail space. We're basically asking to take two retail buildings that we have and to, o- one of which is a large building of 14,000 square feet, and to break it down into two smaller buildings, one oriented towards Man O' War and the other oriented towards the green space. Um, and then we wo- and we, then we will have the bank location. And we will als- and we'll, and because of that, we're gonna have to move, we want to move the gathering area, uh, which, uh, Mr. Mold will explain to you why the neighborhood, in unison with the developer, would like to move that, um, that gathering space. So without further comment, Rob, if you'll please come up. If you'll please come up. Thank you, Mr. Rochelle. Um, my name's Rob Mold. I'm the president of the Gleneagles Homeowner Association. Um, I met with some of you last week, I think, I guess five, from what they've said. Um, the neighborhood, uh, we have 703 houses just in Gleneagles. Uh, we have Bryant Oaks, which he had talked about earlier is over here, which is about another 1200 homes. We have Bellemeade, which is a neighborhood over here. I'm not quite... there's three or 400 homes over there. And if you fol- follow Polo Club straight back, you have something called The Home Place that's another 2000 homes. So we have issues with... uh, this satellite photo shows the eight apartment buildings that are Section 8 housing that we have are, are, are federally subsidized housing that the developer, that the person that bought this property came in and developed. We have, I'm sure everybody here saw on the news about a month ago, somebody was shot and killed in this building right here. A home invasion is what they called it. It was a... it had to do with drugs or money. So we've got those issues. If you look at the crime report, there is a huge dot right here of about 12 different colors for different crimes that have been committed at 2920 Polo Club Boulevard for different calls. They all show at the address of 2920 Polo Club Boulevard. We've got major... you know, this is probably the largest, this and this field that was just bought by the KU to build a substation are probably th- the two biggest concerns that the neighborhood has. You're looking at property values declining immensely with a substation. It's proven all over the internet, all over research proves that. You've got these houses that border the apartments. You've got this whole section of the neighborhood back here, this road is the only entrance. We've got parking issues along Market Garden Lane. We've got, you know, loitering, we've got everything. We, we're trying to work with the apartment ownership. We've got issues. W- we don't necessarily need, and we don't really want a gathering area that large right here by the... especially right here by the dumpsters. There's a fence with three dumpsters in it, but there's a large gathering area right here that we don't really want. We don't need any more loitering, any more crime in the neighborhood. It's on the news too much as it is. We've got the Chevron that's been robbed once, the Rite Aid's been robbed once, um, and I hate to say it, but it's all been since these apartments have been built. So there's, there's a lot of issues going on. You've got 3500, 4000 homes back here. It, they talked about com- they said something about community center developing, and that they didn't want a drive-through on the bank. What bank do you go to that doesn't have a drive-through? I t- I don't... I've never seen one except for in a Kroger, and they're not gonna put a Kroger over here, it's not big enough. So, I mean, they've, they've done a great job with the patios and stuff back here. They could be integrated in with the retail space for a restaurant. Um, the walkway, the road, I... the neighborhood doesn't... to that, to us, that doesn't matter. Um, honestly, if, if you, if you look at the road here, the, the city or, or traffic or whoever approved two pork chops, one here and one on Polo Club Boulevard, that doesn't allow people coming off Man O' Ward onto Polo Club to turn left into the first entrance anyway. So the only way to come in is to come down to Market Garden, turn left onto Polo Club Lane, then go down in. So you have... you're gonna have an entrance or a driveway going through here over into this huge shopping center with one entrance and one exit for people to come back out onto Polo Club Boulevard. That, you know, with those two things, you can come out of here and turn right, and the apartments can come out and turn left, and you can turn left into the apartments, but you cannot come out of the shopping center and turn left and go back to your house. You have to come down Polo Club Lane, turn left and come out from there. So there's... we have issues. We, you know, we have... I receive emails every day about, "When is our neighborhood gonna win a battle? When are we gonna, when are we gonna have something good happen?" You know, we just happened to stumble upon KU buying that piece of property. I live right next to it. I live in this house right here. And this substation is gonna be in my backyard. And when I go to sleep at night, I'm gonna hear the humming from it. So, you know, they don't plan on building this till 2012 from what we understand, so we're gonna ... You know, the Neighborhood Association, we've already committed to fighting that substation as much as we can. We're gonna do everything we can to make sure that they don't build that. But we've got this fight, we've got an ongoing battle here. This is a 15-year tax assi- tax credit program for the owners of this apartment complex. They're not going anywhere. That's not, nothing's happening there. We have to deal with that issue. We don't want to deal with the crime from people loitering over here in this. You know, I mean, I don't know. One of the things that you had said on the, uh, mandated things that you talked on the previous people that were here was letter number I was, "Implement neighborhood protection overlay, zoning presi- pre- provisions as a tool for establishing stability and protection in existing and esp- especially older neighborhoods." Protection. We need our neighborhood protected. Oops. Um, it hasn't, you know, the police department and, and people are doing everything that they can to help us out, but we have, we've had a lot of issues. And we get complaints and, and I've been the president for a year and a half, and it's, uh, I think our neighborhood has more going on than any other neighborhood in the city, as far as negative effects. When you drive in our neighborhood and you see a sign that says, "Glen Eagles," you have Section 8 housing on the right, commercial on the left, and a substation on the left. So it's not a, it's not a real great thing to drive in and, and look at every day when you come home. So if, you know, if we could win a battle here and get something that would truly help the neighborhood, with a bank having a community center with a conference room for us to use, with a bathroom, with, uh, a break area. We, we have 700 houses and we don't have a clubhouse or a piece, a single piece of property that we could use to build a clubhouse. Developer came in and built the houses and didn't leave a piece of land available for us. So that's something that we don't have. Currently, we have to drive all the way down Todds Road to Crossroads Christian Church and use a conference room there once a month for our Homeowner's Association meetings. So we have nowhere to have ... We have, I don't know if anybody's ever been in the Chevron station, but there's a Charlie Biggs Chicken place in here, and they're closed on Sundays. And every year for Christmas, we have Santa Claus in a chicken restaurant, and give out free pictures to kids for the Homeowners Association. It'd be nice to be able to do it in a bank, a room that was a little bit nicer, that didn't have a deep fryer in it, that didn't have a, a ... It's also got a, a ice cream place in there with it. So, you know, it's ... We support it. The board unanimously voted to approve it to help support it. Um, it's, it's a, it's a nice plan. It's a, a plan that's, that's looks good to the eye. It might not meet everything as far as what they, what zoning or staff or whoever staff is, wants to have it meet. Um, but I don't ... I mean, there's already currently a, a building there approved anyway, so I mean, why not make it a bank? This is gonna help the community. I mean, that's a community center to me. It's giving something back and the building that's there is not gonna be big enough and not gonna have anything to help us out. So, does anybody have any questions for me? I- Thank you, Mr. Mold. I, I did have one que- how does your, your association feel about the vehicular access? Did I miss that? No, I, honestly, I, I don't think we care either way. Okay, all right. Um, uh, I think we're okay with the walkway and I think we're okay with the drive-through part. We initially approved i- we initially approved it with the drive-through, and then when they were told that the drive-through wasn't wanted, we reapproved it with the, with the walkway, so- With the walkway? ... yeah. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. Appreciate your comments. Uh-huh. Mr. Rochelle, do you have anyone else? Um, Mr. Chairman, we do not. Um, I, um, I, I really app- I want to thank Rob for coming down. He's, he's a young man. He's working to support his family. He's in the mortgage business, and he, and he ... Uh, we really appreciate it, Rob, you coming down. I know it's a sacrifice. Um, in conclusion, and, and certainly Al Gross has been the master of this presentation, but in conclusion, we're asking for no more square footage. We're asking to separate the buildings. We're asking to move, uh, the gathering space. Mr. Mold has, uh, told you why he has, he's worked with us to, to have that happen. Uh, we think having the gathering space along the greenway will allow the community in Glen Eagles and the other neighborhoods that were mentioned to enjoy the green space. Uh, I liked Al's, uh, comments about regatta. Imagine a patio overlooking the nice green space. Um, I- I, we really, we're neutral on whether or not we close the road or not, if the, eh, uh, whatever y'all's pleasure is there. But we would ask you to approve this plan, not only for the developer, but because of the sincere efforts and the s- sincere needs of the neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Rochelle. Any questions from the commission for petitioner or any of his, uh, team? Okay. Uh, I failed to ask. Is there anyone else in the audience? I see some folks out there that wish to speak to this application. Yes, sir, if you could? My name is Larry Ridenhour. I live at 3064 Roundaway Down Lane. I'm a resident of Glen Eagles. I wholeheartedly support the idea of eliminating the gathering space for the same reasons that Rob mentioned to all of you. I had something to do with the original plan that was approved. Conditions have certainly changed in our neighborhood. So, uh, that's one reason I think that this plan oughta eliminate the gathering place. Secondly, why you would turn this down on the basis of the drive-in bank as a suburban development, when you've already approved two other suburban developments on that small eight-acre track. The Rite Aid was... is a, uh, a compromis- you already compromised the plan. And the same with the, uh, gas station. You have two suburban developments, so you already created a precedent. How you can turn this down, uh, on that basis, I don't know why. This whole eight acres is basically a suburban development and, uh, so those are the only two comments I wanna make. Thank you, Mr. Ridenour. Okay. At this point, um, I guess, staff, do you have anything else you'd like to add? Just as one point of clarification, on your agenda, on the five reasons for disapproval, you can strike number five. Staff did investigate that further, and, uh, you can remove that condition. Q- question for staff, on- Yes, sir. ... on number four, we're talking about the substantial conflict between KU and the, the utility easement. Uh, what... Does that have a recommendation how to resolve that, that conflict? Or is that generally worked out between the utility and the developer? It, uh, it could be a resolved condition were you to approve the plan. Those circumstances do have to be worked out, obviously, before the property can be built upon. Mr. Penn has a question, Mr. Martin. Um, w- when I look at the plan that Mr. Gross passed out, this one, it, it shows that there's a forced main that goes through there, and the bank's gonna be built right over top of the forced main. Is that right or wrong? That's wrong. The forced main goes through there, that's right. The bank is not gonna be built on top of it. So the forced main stops before it gets to the bank? No, the forced main would be relocated along with, along with the overhead utility service. That's- And keep in mind that even the original plan, the plan that is approved would require those same type of relocations. Right. Okay. But on the map, it doesn't sh- it just looks like it's going on through there. But it, it, uh, it doesn't say reloc- to be relocated, that's true. Well, a- and, again, I'm gonna speak up for Mr. Penn. In defense of these documents we look at and these exhibits we look at, that's what we see. So if, if... In all fairness to everybody on this side of this wall, if you can show us something that's accurate, we would appreciate it. So that's... In all fairness. I'll do that. Thank you. And I'm sorry I didn't do it this time. I just assumed, in- incorrectly, that, that the two-dimensional plan was understood. But... An- and I apologize, but certainly all the utility conflicts will be relocated before any construction takes place on that property. Okay. Thank you. Are there any other questions for Mr. Martin? Okay. Mr. Gross, Mr. Rochelle, you have anything else you'd like to add? Nope. Okay. Thank you. We'll, uh, close this portion of the hearing and, uh, turn it over to the commission for any further comment. Uh, motion? I'll make a motion, uh, for approval of DP2008106, uh, deleting i- number five, the 25-foot vegetative buffer, and incorporating the vehicular connection- Yeah, we need some findings. If you, if you decide, if you choose to put forward a motion for approval, we'll need findings for approval. Okay. Do we have some findings? Um. Mr. Holmes, I don't believe you need findings. The staff is prepared to offer some conditions if you'd like to see them. Okay. Thank you. We'll put them on the overhead. Thank you. Oh, I can read those. Bigger. Okay. First nine conditions are fairly typical. Well, then I would... Let me see this. First nine, ten... Can, can we, uh... I guess, Mr.- can we just run through the last 10, I guess? Or, I'm sorry, the last five, four or five? Yes. The first nine are ordinary sign-off conditions. 10 would be the, uh, KU easement, uh, resolution of that that we've discussed, uh, along with 11, for the sanitary sewer line, that we've discussed. Um, number 12, I would have to have Mr. Martin elaborate on number 12. Th- that refers to the pork chop in one of the entrances that, it's our understanding, has not been constructed, and there is concern on the part of staff, since that's required, and as you increase the development intensity here, that we'd like to know when that improvement was going to be done. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Martin. Number, uh, 13, uh, gets at some of the issues that we discussed last week at your subdivision committee meeting, about pedestrian connectivity. Uh, and then number 14 was brought to us by, uh, the Division of Building Inspection staff. ... uh, because the, uh, Man-O-War Landscape Ordinance has been extended to include this property. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Solly. Are there any, uh- Second. ... questions to, uh, conditions that have... Mr. Cravens? You're saying number 12 will address the connectivity? For vehicles? Number 13 would address pedestrian, uh, under- under, um, your discussion, Mr. Holmes, that could be expanded to include vehicular as well. Okay. Okay. Mr. Cravens, you had a question? Ye- yeah, my question was just on the motion that, uh... Are you saying that you want the, the street connected or pedestrian? Yeah, I would add on number 13, the pedestrian and vehicular connections to the adjoining property. Okay. I- I'd like to make an amendment to his motion. Discussion? Okay. Um, let's, uh- I don't know that his motion was even seconded. No, it was not seconded. Well, it was not... Uh, because I interrupted him, it was not seconded, but, uh - As parliamentarian- Would you like to... Could you make your motion again, Mr. Holmes, based on what we have on the overhead? Thank you. Yes. I would make a motion based on the overhead, the 14 items, with the addition of, of they've included item 13, vehicular. Second. D- do we have also, as part of that, a finding that, um, that there's a reason that you believe it, it does in fact comply with that community aspect of the EAMP requirements? Yes, I think that- Um, and, and basically you're factual. If you, you... Is it because you're adding the vehicle access that you believe it creates the kind of, you know, the... To s- satisfies that requirement? Yes. Okay. Motion approved. So, so your compliance with the EAMP is based on the adding back of the vehicular access, is that... Well, I was asking if that was his- Okay. ... motion and his finding that he was proposing. Yes. Okay. I second. Okay. We have a motion and a second, uh, to approve Plan DP2008-108, and finding, I guess, acceptance of the EAMP Compliance Report with the addition of the vehicule access to condition number 12, uh, and that the plan is in compliance. So, with that, uh, I'll call the question. Mr. Cravens? Ye- yes, I'd like to amend the motion. Make an amendment to it. Uh, I'd like- Well, if Mr. Holmes is willing to accept an amendment to your motion. I haven't heard from him. Okay. Are you willing to accept an amendment ? Well, um- Okay . ... I, I don't think it's up to him. I think I can make the motion to amend it, and if we get a second then we vote that up or down and then- Okay. He is parliamentarian. Isn't he? Uh-huh. I'm exercising my parliamentary right . I'd like to amend his motion to not have the, um, vehicular, uh, connection and use the pedestrian access. Um, I think this is... We've done this before. Um, a similar... This looks very similar to me to the Hamburg situation where we had Lowe's and Walmart up there, and then we had this greenway going through there and then we had the other, um... I don't know what those other stores are over there, there's sporting goods and some restaurants and things, and they were to put a bridge through there, and then we, we, uh, made a, uh, a finding that they didn't, didn't put the bridge only connected by pedestrians. And so, uh, this kind of reminds me of that, and I think it would be much better and safer if there wasn't, uh, a way out of there, if somebody were to, uh, leave the gas station without paying or something like that. I think it would be safer for the neighborhood if they couldn't get out that second way. So, that's my motion. Okay. So as, as part of the amendment, I would assume we'd also need then to amend that finding on its satisfying the EAMP requirements as to community design- ... by finding perhaps that the existing proposed- We won't do that. ... pedestrian access is sufficient to tie the two areas of the, the CC areas together is sufficient to satisfy that? Yes. Okay. Okay. You've heard... Uh, is there, is there a second? Yes, second. Oh, I didn't hear the second. He accepts the amendment. Do you accept the amendment, Mr. Holmes? Mr. Holmes, yes sir. All right. Okay. We have an amendment to that motion and we have a second. We'll vote on the amendment. Can we have discussion first? Yes, sir. Question? Mike, I, I just don't think that without the, without the road connection that you fulfill the requirements for the CCC. The difference with that other one was is that it wasn't a CCC. And so if you're gonna have a CCC and you're gonna have those kind of neighborhood requirements, then there is a difference between where Lowe's and them were with that road and, and what this is, because the difference in the way it was zoned. Uh, they're asking for a, a development plan change, but it's still a CCC. And to, to... You have to incorporate the rest of that neighborhood in order to fulfill the requirements of the CCC, or that's my opinion of it. So, I'm gonna vote against your motion based on that. Mr. Cravens? We, we discussed that very, uh, point in the subdivision, and it was pointed out that we had, uh, access. Most people, if they were gonna access the other section, would go down Man-O-War anyway, and then there was also... I, I think there's a connection down here where the, uh, neighborhood president lives that you can connect over into the Blackford, um, property and then come back into that section. So there... We discussed that- Yeah- ... and we felt there was plenty of access. Mr. Day? In that same discussion, we talked about, you know, we... To try to keep some of that traffic off Polo Club, why should somebody that lives back over here that goes to here have to come back out on Polo Club, go all the way down to go to a Rite Aid when, when we looked at this thing in the very beginning as being connected? So, I mean, I, I just think that we... That the connection needs to be there. Well, um, I happen to live on Polo Club about three or four miles from that, um, intersection, and I go there all the time, but it, the- the way you enter that, um, CC area there, and these pork chops. I don't know what a pork chop road design is, but, uh- ... it's been stated. Uh, it, I- I mean, it's very chaotic right there. Everybody's turning every which way and going ever which way. And then I think if you ask for more people to do that, I mean, nobody knows how to turn through there. And with a little car you can eliminate the part of the pork chop and just cut right on through there. So, uh, I don't know that we should encourage more, you know, uh, ingress and egress there. Thank you, Mr. Cravens. Question? Okay, we have a- a- an amendment on the floor. Um, does everyone recall Mr. Craven's amendment? We've had some lively discussion. Okay. Um, all those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." No. No? Can we take a poll on that? We're voting on the amendment? We're voting on the amendment. That is correct. Mr. Holmes? No. No? Ms. Hutcherson? Yes. Mr. Day? No. Mr. Penn? No. Mr. Owens? No. Ms. Phillips? Mr. Cravens? Yes. Ms. Copeland? No. Mr. Brewer? No. And Mr. Vaughn? No. Five to five. That does pass. Five to five? Mm-hmm. Okay. Don't- don't we have... How many us here, 11? No, it's 10. Okay. That's it. The amendment failed, but the original motion remains- Remains. ... unaltered before the- Right, right. ... before the commission. Understood. Understood. Can I ask a question? Okay. We'll call the question for the next motion that's on the floor. Do we state these conditions? Yes, Ms. Copeland. I was out at this site before this connectivity ever came aboard, and once you go down the grade, it was just like a whirlpool of traffic there. And once the bank gets in there and they're turning out people, I would hate to walk through there with a baby carriage and that road dumping out and headed for the corner of the Rite Aid building. I just think it's, I think it's already confused because of what happened to the site before this happened. Um, and I really am strongly in favor of not a- abdicating our responsibility. I think we are more responsible putting in the walk- pedestrian walkway. Thank you, Ms. Copeland. Any other question? Okay. We have a motion on the floor to approve, uh, plan 2008-108 with the 14 conditions on the overhead, and noting that, um, uh, providing of the vehicular connection will bring, uh, this plan into compliance with the EMP. So with that, uh, motion and second, all those in favor of that motion, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We'll take a break for about five minutes. But that's so weird. Could I have made a bigger point? Cha cha cha. Cha, cha, cha. Ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh. Ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh. Ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh. Ah, ah, ah, ah. Ah, ah, ah, ah. Ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah. Ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh. Ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh. Ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh. Ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh. You made it that way. Your sweet love made it that way. Yeah, yeah. You made it that way. Your sweet love made it that way. It was a watermelon summer, a hummingbird hummer. Every day was a slumber in the shade. It was a tail-tailing whopper, banana-split topper, a tall cool glass of lemonade. You made it that way. Your sweet love made it that way. Yeah, yeah. You made it that way. Your sweet love made it that way. It was a lot of water splashing, a fall-down kinda laughing, good ole times rehashing afternoons. It was a backyard barbecuing, hammock swinging wooing, 'neath the summer's watermelon moon. You made it that way. Your sweet love made it that way. Yeah, yeah. You made it that way. Your sweet love made it that way. Yeah. It was a melody of crickets, singing in the thickets. It was a game of hide and seek for kick-the-can. It was olly-ods and free, every time for you and me, because hiding was the best part of the game. You made it that way. Your sweet love made it that way. Yeah, yeah. You made it that way. Your sweet love made it that way. Yeah, yeah. You made it that way. Your sweet love made it that way. Yeah, yeah. You made it that way. Next item on the agenda appears on page five. It is DP2008-129 Greendell Hills Chesapeake Equine. As for property located on Greendell Road, just south of the hitch in Greendell. This is the Myers property where we have an approved preliminary subdivision plan and the Greendell, I'm sorry, the Hillenmyer subdivision. Purpose of this plan is to build a church along with a detention basin and parking along Greendell Road. This is an amended preliminary plan. The last plan that came in was just for the access road back to the now existing T-Mobile cell tower. Um, the Subdivision Committee recommended approval of this plan subject to 21 conditions. Uh, the first nine or so were sign-off conditions, the rest were clean-up. Um, the only discussion item remai- that remained was the discussion on the addition of sidewalks to Greendell Road. Um, the applicants were not at the Subdivision Committee, and those issues were not resolved at the time. Uh, in reviewing the two adjacent preliminary subdivision plans, they do both show sidewalks on the, on the fronts for Greendell Road. And so, the staffs, uh, would, would ask that the sidewalks be added to this plan and in the cross-section as well. Uh, so to resolve 21, we would just ask that you remove the word "discuss" and just have the condition be "addition of sidewalks to Greendell Road." And the cross-section amendment, uh, would come under traffic engineering sign-off. I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Are there any questions for Mr. Taylor? Thank you very much, sir. Petitioner? My name is Bill Lee. I'm with Core Incorporated, and we're representing the, uh, Center Point Christian Church. We have no problem with the conditions that have been, you have asked us to adhere to. And item 21 regarding the sidewalks, whatever happens in the neighborhood adjoining, with adjoining properties, we will comply with their endeavor to provide adequate sidewalks. Thank you very much, sir. Uh, are there any questions for Mr., Mr. Lee at this time? Any questions? Boy, that's short and sweet, got you out quick. Thank you very much. Okay. Um, I guess, uh, I see a few folks in the audience. Is there anyone who wants to speak to this application? We have present? Okay, thank you. All right, um, at this time, we'll close this portion and turn it over to the commission. Ready for a motion? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of DP2008-129, with the 20 conditions and, and changing number 21 to addition to sidewalk to Greendell Road instead of discuss. Okay, we have a motion and a second to approve. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Okay, while staff is, uh, setting up, um, Chairman, we'll entertain a release and call of bonds. Mr. Chairman, I move that we, um, accept the release and call of bonds in the memorandum from Ron St. Claire to Chris King dated October 9th. Did I hear a second? Second. We have a motion and a second to, um, accept the release and call of bonds. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Okay, at this time, um, we'll have the staff, uh, staff, I think, has a presentation on, uh, tax increment financing applications. Good afternoon. This is a totally new thing for us , similar to public facility review, but not exactly. Um, first of all, before we start, um, I was made aware that there's a typo on the agenda. It's on page six, and it is item number two. Instead of Center Point LLC, it's supposed to be LFUCG that has the TIF application . We have two applications for TIF districts to be reviewed. Um, those are permitted by state statute, and one is for the Manchester Street area, and one is for the downtown area. There are different types of TIF districs- districts, and they are based on different criteria such as size or the amount of, um, capital investment or whatever. There are various criteria that they have to meet and that determines what kind it is. The one on Manchester Street is known as the Lexington Distillery District Development Area, and that is considered a blighted urban mixed-use redevelopment area TIF district. And then the one downtown is the Phoenix Park Courthouse development area, and that is known as a signature TIF district. The process of creating a TIF district provides a mechanism so that improvements to an area, a specific area, can be made and then, um, the financing is provided upfront, and then the improvements, the, the revenues that are generated from the improvements will help to pay for the projects. As part of this, um, the Urban County Council has to conduct a public hearing, and for each of these districts, it'll, it'll be on October 21st. And then the development plan and their recommendation will be forwarded to the state, and then the state reviews it and either approves or disproves it. If it is approved, then a formal agreement is executed between the Irving County Government and the state, and then the TIF dist- district is created. And then as part of that whole process, it's your responsibility to review the TIF district eh- and determine and certify whether it's in compliance with the comprehensive plan or not. So that's what we're doing today. The first one that we're gonna review is the Lexington Distillery District Development Area, and that is number one, under A, under Commission Items. That encompasses both sides of Manchester Street, and it goes, this black outline here is the district, and then it's, excepted from that is this small area right there. Newtown Pike extension is along here, the proposed Newtown Pike extension. We've got Manchester Street that comes directly through there, and then it extends almost down to South Forbes Road, which is right there. Section. How many? It encompasses about 25 acres- Do we- ... maybe little bit less than 25 acres. There are both public and private improvements included in this, and that will all be part of the development plan package that'll go to the council, and then it'll be forwarded on to the state. The list of improvements starts on the bottom of page one of the staff report, and it goes over to the middle of page two. First, you see the, um, the public improvements that are im- proposed for this, and then in the middle of page two are the private improvements. There are several elements of the comprehensive plan that speak to the type of projects that are if, um, proposed for this, and then, um, the mission statement and the vision statement for Lexington provide the basis for land use decisions and development, including urban design. That's one of the things. And the mission of Lexington's planning efforts is to provide a vision for physical development that will allow Lexington to grow and prosper, promoting economic development and viable job development, while preserving its quality of life, historic character and amenities, and other elements that make it a desirable place to live. So that definitely speaks to and supports the TIF district. And then there are several themes that are included as part of the vision statement that also are applicable. Those are at the bottom of page two and the top of page three. Promoting the myriad components that strengthen the viability of downtown, including professional and commercial uses, cultural and recreational activities, and new and existing housing, implementing infill and redevelopment strategies that expand residential and commercial opportunities, are appropriate in character and design, and complement and reinforce the fabric of the neighborhood, enabling the creation, growth, and retention of jobs that promote a strong, progressive, and diversified urban and rural economy, developing a green infrastructure system with open space, facilities, and amenities that serves all citizens and helps create a sense of community, providing infrastructure improvements to fully serve existing developments to accommodate current growth, to plan for long-term future urban needs, and to enhance the high quality of life in Lexington. Those five in particular, um, apply to this. And then in the comprehensive plan, we have 21 goals, with all having objectives to help implement those goals. Ten of those goals directly apply to this and support this or are supported by the, by the developments that are proposed. Those are listed on page, pages three to six of your staff report. The land use element of the plan has text that supports this, and part of that is the principles of the Downtown Master Plan. This is not specifically within the heart of downtown, but parts of the district are included within the Downtown Master Plan. And because of the, the development that's, has begun already and that will continue hopefully, this is gonna be an extension of downtown, and it will probably show as such, or possibly show as such on the next comprehensive plan. We have found nothing in the comprehensive plan that is in opposition to this, and so, I mean, everything that we've found is in basically support of it, and it, it, they support each other. The comprehensive plan supports this and this s- supports the comprehensive plan. Part of your certification is the ability to make a recommendation as far as any zone changes that might be needed or any text amendments that might be needed or any other changes that might be needed, and we haven't found any that, that should be needed because the, every property except for one little one on Manchester Street is zoned B4I1RI2, and that property can stay zoned R1D, be used as a single family residence, or it can be rezoned and used to accommodate one of the uses that's allowed in the adaptive reuse text amendment. And that was done, um, they received first reading last Thursday and they'll get second reading next Thursday, so that hopefully will help to implement this. And that was done by Pepper Distillery to allow the TIF district application to move forward. There is one situation that we ought to note, and Jimmy if you could, or whoever, can put up the floodplain map that's up there. Most of the... That's the second map. It'll be the second map. Most of the district is, is designated as a, a FEMA special flood hazard area, and it's all, I don't know if you can see it, but it's everything that is the blue in here is FEMA flood hazard. There's only a very small part that isn't. And so, um, Mr. McNeese has proposed flood mitigation and, um, flood control as part of his TIF application as one of the public improvements that he's asking for, but that will have to be resolved as far as the development process. That'll be an issue to be resolved, and he is aware of this. Um, comp- the comp plan has, is goal three, it says to promote land uses that are sensitive to the natural and built environment, and it has four objectives that are listed on page seven that relate to this. That provides the basis for environmental stewardship that's recommended by the comprehensive plan as it relates to development. So, to ensure that those are met with regard to the floodplain improvements, um, we think that the natural environment is, regards Town Branch Creek and the floodplain, that needs to be enhanced rather than, rather than degraded with this, with this development- ... um, the most relevant language that supports the project is in the downtown section of the ... of the ... of the comprehensive plan. That states, "The need for a vibrant, dynamic, and growing downtown area continues to be one of the most important elements of the overall growth management strategy of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan. Since the adoption of the 2001 plan update, extensive efforts have been undertaken to enhance recent trends and development activity that bode well for a major renaissance of Lexington's downtown area. Recent trends and development activity have shown that downtown is an attractive place to live. This residential component ... component of downtown is viewed as key to downtown's future, as downtown and the immediate vicinity are inherently attractive to both younger and older residents due to diversity, walkability, entertainment, proximity to major universities, and many other factors. A number of recent projects are underway which will add additional living space to downtown, often in a mixed-use development." And he has, um, included residential components as part of his development project. Um, we find this to be in compliance with the comprehensive plan and ask that you certify this as such. We've provided the ... the certification form. Mr. Vaughn has that with his ... with his staff report, um, and asks that you approve it and certify it. And if you have any questions, I'd be glad to try to answer those. And Ms. Westover is here, and Mr. McNiece's attorney ... TIF attorney is here to answer any other questions. Thank you, Ms. Rikers. Are there any ... Thank you. ... are there any questions for Barb? That's a nice ... nice report. Thank you. I... I just have one ... one quick question- Mm-hmm. ... Barb. Uh, in regards to the Downtown Master Plan, I guess that's incorporated as part of the comprehensive plan. Has that been adopted? The Downtown Master Plan, the principles are included as part of the adopted plan. Okay. And so they're in compliance with the principle? Yes. Okay. And you said that Ms. Westover and Mr. McNiece is here for questions. Mr. McNiece's attorney is ... Oh, he is here. Yay, hi. Okay. All right. Does... does anyone of the commissioners, do anyone have any questions for Barb or the, um, applicant? Mr. Penn. Barb, when you showed us the map of Manchester Street, and you said that piece of property is excluded. Uh-huh. Can you tell me what that is or where? Um, it's a small area and it could be, there are some properties in downtown that are excluded from the one in Phoenix, and it could be that they just didn't want to disclose their financial situation and didn't want to be included as part of this. It's excluded... it's excluded at their request, then. Probably. Okay, thank you. I guess at this point, since this is new territory for us, law is, I guess, acceptance of the statement of compliance and the certification. Is that ... would be the motion? Yes, that would be the motion, is that, um, you are certifying it as being in conformity with the comprehensive plan and authorizing the chairperson to sign the certificate of compliance. Okay, thank you. Okay, are there any other questions, comments? Is there a motion? So moved. Mr. Chairman, I will... I will move that, um, that the commission, uh, certify that this is in compliance, meets our goals and objectives, and to authorize you to sign, uh, on our behalf. Second. Thanks. We have a motion and a second. Uh, all those in favor, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. Oppose, no. All right, thank you. Motion carries. Thank you. Nice work. Thank you. And there is a second one, if you could put the other map up there, the downtown one. And as I said, this is at LFUCG rather than CenterPoint, and I apologize for that typo. This one is known as the Phoenix Courthouse Development Area, and as I said, it's a signature TIF district. It encompasses three ... about three blocks and about 14 1/4 acres in the heart of downtown. You've got Vine Street, extends across Vine Street and extends beyond Limestone and then goes up Limestone Street up to Bar Street. Then it comes back down and goes along Main Street, up Upper Street, and then it encompasses this block, pretty much of this block that has Market Street, Church Street, and Upper Street. And then it comes back down and meets Mill Street, back over to Upper Street, and then along Vine Street again. It's got ... Phoenix Park is included in there, the New Courthouse area is included in there, and the Old Courthouse area and Cheapside Park, all of which will have improvements to 'em. And again, the improvements are both, um, public and private, and the public improvements are listed on page two, the top of page two of your staff report, and then the private improvement is primarily CenterPoint in this project, or in this ... in this development plan. And all of this will be reviewed by the Urban County Council again, and it'll go through the same process as I described before, as far as going to the Urban County Council with your certification, and then going to the state for their review and approval. There are three themes that are part of the vision statement that are direct related... directly related to, and they support the, um, proposed TIF improvements here. Those are promoting the myriad components that strengthen the viability of downtown, including professional and commercial uses, cultural and recreational activities, and new and existing housing, enabling the creation, growth, and retention of jobs that promote a strong, progressive and diversified urban and rural economy, and providing infrastructure improvements to fully serve existing developments to accommodate current growth, to plan for long-term future urban needs, and to enhance the high quality of life in Lexington. And then there are several goals and objectives that speak to the, um, these improvements too. Goal 12, which is to ensure the desirability, diversity, and vitality of downtown, and that has seven objectives that are in conformance with this. Goal 18, which is to provide and maintain essential public services and facilities, that has three objectives. Goal 19, provide and maintain a comprehensive transportation system, that has two related objectives. And goal 20, which is to provide and maintain a range of community facilities and services, has five objectives. And then again, there are portions of the land use element text that support this. The principles of the downtown master plan, specifically invest in a pedestrian network, develop Vine Street to include a linear pedestrian park within the Vine Street right of way, although this will not be located within the TIF development district as such, and then to make farmer's market a permanent amenity. And then the text of the land use element also supports the additional parking, and that is shown in the middle of page four, right before the conclusion in your staff report. And then the, um, most relevant language is also in the downtown part. It says, "The need for a vibrant, dynamic and growing downtown area continues to be one of the most important elements of the overall growth management strategy of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan. The downtown area is the heart of the community, and it's center for government and most commerce. Since the adoption of the 2001 plan update, extensive efforts have been m- undertaken to enhance recent trends and development activity that bode well for a major renaissance of Lexington's downtown area." We also find this to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and this district and the uses that are proposed fit the vision statement, as stated in the downtown section of the land use element and we ask for your approval and certification of this one as well. And if you have any questions, I'll be glad to try to answer them. Mr. Tate is here on behalf of the Phoenix Courthouse area. Thank you, Barb. To answer any other questions. Are there any questions for Barb? Okay. She said Mr. Tate's here. Any questions? Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Tate? Okay. All right. Um, at this time, uh, the chair will entertain a motion, if there are no questions/comments. We do... You want me to do... You call it. Mr. Chairman, I move that, um, w- we state that we have reviewed these, uh, this presentation, it meets all the goals and objectives, or beats most of the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, and that we authorize you to sign this as our representative. Second. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second to accept. Uh, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. She did a lot of work. Lot of work. Lot of work. Mm-hmm. Mr. Salih. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We do have a public facility review today, and during the break, we passed out a staff report on this. This is PFR2008-2, a public facility review for the proposed LFUCG Public Safety Operations Center. This proposed facility is planned to be located at 920 Citation Boulevard. The property is zoned, um, R3, and in just a moment we should have the zoning map on the overhead for you. And using that to orient you, it is on the south side of Citation Boulevard. It is to the east of Georgetown Road, which is off the map, and west of Newtown Pike, also off the map. It is immediately, uh, catty corner, if you will, to the Coal Stream Research Campus, which is across Citation to the north and to the east. And actually the subject property is the corner of the property that was actually rezoned in 1991 to create, uh, the Cold Stream Research Campus, uh, uh, for the University of Kentucky. This was one of the few, uh, areas, and I believe the only area, that was not zone P2, f- office, industry, and research park, as part of that zone change. The site is 16.17 acres in size and basically was created with the construction of Citation Boulevard. The proposal is before you because of KRS100.324, which requires a 60-day review and comment period for the planning commission on major public projects. We have rendered the proposed site plan for the Public Safety Operations Center. Again, it's not quite oriented to the north the way the, uh, zoning map is, but it is on the south side of Citation. It is proposed to have a direct access to that roadway. Uh, we'll come in with a loop drive system, and also a connection to the Highlands Park, w- which is immediately to the south and west of this proposed 16-acre site. There are two buildings proposed, a two-story, uh, building here, and a much smaller one-story storage building in that location. In addition, you can tell by this plan, there are a number of off-street parking spaces proposed along the drive aisles. Of interest, in the dark green, there are also pavers proposed to provide overflow parking... ... on portions of the site that would only be used, uh, presumably in declared emergencies or at peak operating times. Most of the eastern portion of this 16-acre site is not proposed for development immediately. The facility is located next to two residential subdivisions, as you can tell in the zoning map, Highlands to the south and a newer subdivision on what was formerly the Givens property immediately to the west of this location. On the rendered site plan, you can also see that there is an extensive tree line on both sides of this property as it abuts the subdivisions. We do have an aerial photo that can also demonstrate this and illustrate this for you. Again, we're now looking south at the property. 16 acres is on the south side of Citation. These are the tree lines here. There's also a small tree line located centrally on the property. One of the issues that the staff is recommending in our report, uh, is that consideration be given to the preservation of those tree lines since this facility will be in fairly close proximity to those subdivisions that would make for a nice visual and landscape buffer from this facility to those subdivisions. Also, this property is located within the Royal Springs aquifer. Uh, as you know, as we review development plans in this general area along, uh, Cane Run, for which this property is, is fairly close proximity to, uh, we are often concerned with water quality and storm drainage issues since the aquifer does supply the drinking water for the city of Georgetown. Another staff recommendation as part of our review of this public facility is that, uh, this project be given consideration to be presented to the Royal Spring Wellhead Protection Committee. They are an inner county group between Fayette and Scott County that review development-related issues and water quality issues, uh, in this particular 80-square mile aquifer. Should point out, since it is close to the, uh, creek, a portion of this property is in a designated flood plain, but according to the site plan, there is no proposed development in the flood plain as part of this public facility. On page four of our staff report, the staff has prepared summary findings for your consideration today. Uh, the staff has found that there are no goals and objectives in the comprehensive plan, some 12 that we've identified in our report that are in opposition to the use proposed for this Public Safety Operation Center. Although it is not in strict compliance with the comprehensive plan which does recognize the R3 zoning of the property, um, several goals and objectives, as well as the text of the plan, uh, support this proposed project. As I've mentioned, we have two staff level recommendations for your consideration. Uh, one is that this item be presented to the Royal Spring Wellhead Protection Committee, uh, and then secondly, that the tree lines along the sides of this property be considered for preservation, uh, as a buffer. With that, I'd be glad to answer any questions about the staff report, about our review of this public facility, uh, and to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, Mr. Solly. I think, Mr. Payne, you have a question? Bill, uh, retention of stormwater off of those, off those parking lots in, in sight, uh, is, would that be on site? I would presume that there would be a need for a facility. I do not see one identified on this plan. Uh, Mr. Carmen is here and Mr. Millward from the Irwin County government. Perhaps they have some information about that concept. 'Cause I don't, I, I assume it fl- it sla- flows toward that creek. It does. It flows gen- Flows that way. Yes, sir, from, uh, west to east. I'm Charlie Millward, uh, the Project Manager for the Irwin County government for the Public Safety Operations Center. There is no requirement since this prop- pro- property is adjacent to the creek for retainage, uh, or detainage. However, we do have a, a, uh, water quality system, stormwater quality system to treat the water as it leaves the parking lot to collect oils and silt and that kinda thing to keep them from entering the creek. Um, the, the plans for, for the, for the, uh, site grading include extensive, uh, erosion control measures that will prevent any of the, uh, runoff or silt from the construction project and getting into the creek. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Millward. Are there any other questions? Okay, thank you, Mr. Solly. Thank you. Uh, we have, um, staff recommendation for approval. Um, they do have two, uh, two conditions within that approval, so if there are no further questions or comments, Chairman, I entertain a motion. Motion. Mr. Chairman, I move that, uh, we approve P- PFR2008-2 with the two conditions that are listed by staff. Second. Okay, we have a motion, second to approve with, um, reasons provided by staff. All those in favor, signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. All opposed, say, "No." Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So what does it say right here about this map? Oh, well, that's, uh, in the, uh, initial protection. Okay. ... protection for that approval. . Mm-hmm. . Are you sure? ... and even though the required information had been provided, they found that none of the three conditions actually existed in order to justify demolition. They also said that, um, the information that was provided on the condition of the house was provided two years after the fire, and there was no effort on his part to protect the house from the elements, no effort to rent it or no significant effort to sell the property. The findings in the staff report, as presented to the board, um, state that 115, the house at 115 is the twin to the house at 113. They were built at the same time, same materials, same design, same, um, construction, same age. And although the structural engineer said that the property is, or the house is structurally deficient, it can be reinforced with concrete block or poured concrete, and that has been done several times. The stairs and the upper story are, are structurally sound. And after the staff examined the house and they studied the findings of the structural engineer, they determined that it didn't meet any of the requirements in Article 13 as regards demolition. And this house is more architecturally significant than the house at 113 because the porch is still intact, and so it's more in line with the original design of the house, and so it's more architecturally significant. And taking it out of that block would create basically a missing, a missing tooth in the block because it is right in the middle, and it is one of three houses there. It would create a significant negative impact on the block and in the district, and the board agreed with that, and they voted unanimously to disapprove this based on those, on that recommendation and, and those, um, findings. And then when we looked at this, we didn't find any flaws in either the staff's review or the board's review. They are consistent with the charge in a- in applying the design guidelines, interpreting them and applying them, and it's also consistent with previous, previous actions. And so we recommend that you disapprove this appeal and uphold the Board of Architectural Review's action. And if you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them, and Ms. Curry and Ms. Armstrong are both here. Mr. Lachlan's attorney is here. Thank you, Barb. Thank you. Any questions for Barb at this time? Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Betty Kerr, uh, Director of the Division of Historic Preservation, and I'll be very brief because Ms. Rackers has, as she always does, done a very, uh, good job of summarizing the, um, scenario that is before you today relative to this demolition request at 115 Jefferson Street. Brought some visuals to, uh, give you a little bit of an orientation to the Western Suburb, uh, both National Register and Local Historic District. Uh, it's an area that opened up in the 1830s and, um, has architectural styles and historic buildings reflecting all the different periods of architecture, uh, coming along through those years. It's a very compact neighborhood, as you're probably aware, West Main Street and West Short Street, buildings ranging from the 1830s on up into the, uh, 1920s. There's a bungalow there, an 1830s building next door, a lot of Greek revival architecture in the area. Um, two stories predominantly, some one stories. Here's the corner store building, uh, from the 1870s. This is on Short Street at Ge- at, uh, Georgetown. Um, Stella's Deli building people are familiar with, a representation of the late, uh, 19th century buildings, the Victorian era. Um, the Western Suburb was one of the early subdivisions, if you will, uh, here in Lexington, um, and its counterpart was the Eastern Suburb, now known as the Constitution Historic District, but they are of an era. There's been a good bit of infill in the Western Suburb area, very successfully. This neighborhood association and its property owners throughout the neighborhood have worked diligently to, uh, not only renovate the historic structures, but also to have new infill come into their neighborhood, and this on Main Street is one example of that. I'm sure you all are very familiar with it, with some of the historic obviously right beside it. This is on Georgetown Street, uh, incorporating historic building and new construction is part of this project. This is RTEC, and then the copper clad house that is in the left-hand side of that image, which is a green LEEDS building, uh, built in the Western Suburb. And then this is the, uh, streetscape that has the affected property. This is Jefferson Street, uh, looking, um, more or less south and west, and the affected house for demolition, requested for demolition is the, uh, middle building of this image. We'll see more of it in a second. This is it- this is it here. This is, uh, 115. It is, as Ms. Record says, one of a pair of houses built, um, right at the turn of the century, 1900 to 1901. They are T-plan cottages, vernacular style architecture, uh, very representative of that era. They are d- uh, historic buildings that, um, are very, uh, readily identifiable as, um, of that time period, 1900 to the 1920s, or really 1890s to 1920s. They were particularly popular. Uh, this, the one in question, 115, retains its porch, as you will see, and, uh, it, the fire that it suffered is, was affected on the back part of the property. We'll see an image of that in a minute. This shows you the up close a little bit of it. Uh, sits right on the street, as you can see from this. The sidewalk is just there to the right in the image, and you can see the plane of it and the plane of the building just to its north are right, uh, in close proximity, and the two, the, the twin T-plan cottages are very close together. This is the roof line on the right of 113. ... adjacent to 115, so there is very little space between the two historic structures. This shows you where the fire damage is visible from the exterior on the backend. Unfortunately, this area, once the fire occurred, was left open for some period of time, and that didn't help things, in terms of the, uh, needs to make repairs and so forth. This is an interior after the fire of the main part of the building. You can see it is physically intact, has some smoke damage obviously. Another interior, but your trims and so forth, and, and the H-1 overlay process, of course, does not review interiors, but we wanted you to get some sense that the main mass of the house is physically intact, um, and able to be repaired. And, uh, it is, of course, not only a, when you're, anytime you're weighing demolition, a consideration of the integrity importance of the building that's to be proposed to be torn down, but, you know, what's its role in the bigger picture, in the streetscape that it is part of, and in the, uh, character of the whole neighborhood that it is part of. And these buildings are, uh, quite visible on Jefferson Street, as part of that streetscape of the historic district, and, um, as Ms. Rackers said in her report, if it were lost and this became a parking lot, which is what's the proposed use if it were to be torn down, uh, it would undoubtedly have a negative impact, uh, on the historic district and, and be contradictory to the intent of the design guidelines in article 13. I will not go through, uh, and be repetitive of anything Ms. Rackers said, I hope, or at least not too much of it, um, because she did, uh, state for you the design guidelines that are directly applicable in this situation, and I would just note those. For the record, I would like to just submit, uh, the materials that you are receiving. I think they're working their way down. Um, and, uh, so it's the record relative to the property at 115 Jefferson Street and the board's meetings and minutes and so forth, and then a copy of article 13 of the zoning ordinance and of the design review guidelines. So I will wrap up with that. If, um, anybody has any questions, certainly be glad to answer, but as Ms. Rackers noted, the Board of Architectural Review, in consideration of this application, uh, did act unanimously to, uh, deny the request in accordance with the design guidelines and with article 13, and we would certainly request that you uphold, um, both of those, the guidelines and article 13 by denying this appeal. If you have questions, be glad to answer, or as things move along, if you have questions. Thank you, Betty. I think we do have a few questions. Mr. Owens. Uh, yes, thank you. Ms. Kerr, just curious, when were those pictures taken of the house, that you showed? Um, Ms. Armstrong took them. They are... These are from the summer... This is July of all the peak- pictures, except for the very first one. They were taken in the July of this year. Okay. Thank you. Mm-hmm. Thank you, Betty. Ms. Copeland? When was that officially a historic district? At what date? It was, uh, and I'll just give you a ballpark, but it was in the late 1970s. Made a local historic district and listed on the National Register right around that time, late 1970s, early 1980s at the most. So it's been so for 25 years or so. Thank you. Are there any other questions for Betty? I ju- I just have one quick que- Uh, uh, the unit to the left, is it occupied? Not to my knowledge, but we might be able to ask Mr. Laughlin's representative of that. Um, the one that is requesting the demolition has not been occupied since 2006. We do know that. And I don't know the, uh, occupancy history of the building adjacent. Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions I'd like to ask you. What- My name is Leslie Rosenbaum. I'm an attorney and I represent Mr. Laughlin. Okay, you, uh... I was gonna say, it's your turn. Well, I'll be happy to take my turn, but I would like to ask her a couple of questions first, if that would be acceptable. Betty, do you have a problem with answering? Sure, I don't have a problem. Ms. Kerr, do you know what the PVA, Property Valuation Administrator, valued this property at for the year 2007? No, I don't. I haven't looked that up. If I told you it was $20,000, would you agree or disagree or still just wouldn't know? I would just b- be informed that that's what PVA has valued this as. Have you undertaken to obtain any kind of a contractor's estimate as to the cost of bringing this, uh, building up to code? No. That is not the role of the government in these scenarios. It is the responsibility of the property owner to put forth any information pertaining to the same- Okay. ... uh, per their efforts. And so you don't know what it would cost to bring this building up to code. Only the information that the property owner has submitted as part of their application. Okay. How much was that? Um, we have that information. I think it was about 190-something thousand dollars, was what the one contractor's estimate reflected. But I would remind everyone that that is, uh, one estimate and there are... The tax, the historic tax credits that are available to properties like this were not... I mean, th- we didn't see that reflected in any of the information provided, and that would make a substantial difference. And there also are, um... Thank you, Ms. Rackers. ... uh, that the one provided by Mr. Laughlin is for $193,899.20. Um, and it states, as I believe I recall, that it is, uh, done on a walkthrough. So, I think with any proposal, um, you know, if you put out bids to several, you could get some varieties of prices. But this is what was submitted by the applicant. Do you consider yourself an expert on the rehabilitation tax credit for his- for historic structures? Within reason professionally, I certainly, um, understand the process to advise people about how that works. Basically, is it a tax credit of 20% for rehabilitation of certified historic structures on the National Register? That's correct. In order to take the tax credit, you've gotta have taxable income, don't you? We don't get involved in how it affects individuals prop- individuals' taxes, but advise them what the program puts forward so if, if a renovation project resulted in a property owner getting a $50,000 tax credit, for example, then how it would fit into their personal finances is their business. And in this situation, you don't know that, do you? No, I do not. I'm, I'm not privy to that. In this situation have you undertaken to determine what the cost of rehabilitation would result in, in terms of a tax credit? Well, it would be 20% of whatever is all the allowable expenses that are involved in the renovation of the building, as you have said, resulting in, uh, getting the certification approval. So, once you know that dollar amount of what the owner elects to do for the renovation, and it is agreed upon that that's what from the state and federal level is approved, then it would be 20% of that amount. I understand that, but my question to you was whether or not you have gone through this exercise to attempt to calculate a dollar savings. No, but if you've put forward that it's the 193,000- Excuse me Betty, I'm, I'm gonna interrupt just, uh, sir, can I get your name again please? Leslie Rosenbaum. Okay, Mr. Rosenbaum, this is an appeal before the commission and I don't want to put Ms. Kerr, if you have something to present to us, please present to us- Oh, I do. Okay, well- But I, but I do- ... you said a couple of questions and I've counted seven, so do, are you finished? It looks like I am. Okay. Thank you, sir. Just for the record, I would, uh, object to being limited in cross-examination of Ms. Kerr. Mr. Chairman and members of the commission, as I've said before my name is Leslie Rosenbaum, I'm an attorney here in town, I am a friend of Mr. Laughlin's. Uh, on your agenda, they've got his name as Marion C. Laughlin II. Those of us who are his friends know him as Pete. Uh, he is unable to be here today, he is on the West Coast, the reason he is there is because of health problems and is receiving medical treatment and regrets that he cannot appear here to talk himself. I think the first thing that would be important for us to realize is what this procedure is that we're doing. This is not a procedure to determine whether the Board of Architectural Review was right or wrong. Apparently, the people who were speaking, Ms. Brackers and Ms. Kerr, think that it's your, uh, duty to determine whether or not the Board of Architectural Review made the right decision, and that's not so. Uh, this is an appeal to the planning commission according to, uh, section 13:8 of the ordinance. Section 13:8 of the ordinance says that this will be a de novo hearing. Uh, de novo means anew. It means that there is no deference to be given to the previous proceedings and this proceeding should, excuse me, should take place as if nothing has gone befo- before. Undoubtedly, there are guidelines which discourage demolition of buildings in historic areas. Uh, I'm in favor of that. Mr. Laughlin is in favor of that. Mr. Laughlin has done more to rehabilitate and renovate the intersection of Main and, and, uh, Jefferson, than anybody in the western district. Uh, all of the work down there's been done by Pete Laughlin. I live at, uh, 452 West Third Street in Lexington, have lived there for many years. I'm very much in favor of historic preservation. This is not an argument for or against historic preservation. What this is, is a proceeding to determine whether under code section 13-7C1 is met here and it says that a certificate of appropriateness for demolition should be issued if there is no reasonable economic return that can be realized from the property. In other words, the, the ordinance and the code didn't mean for citizens such as Mr. Laughlin to be wedded and weighted down by a project that doesn't make any worth, financially speaking. Will you put up the first one please? I too brought, uh, some photographs. That's the property in question, that's 115. This is its, uh, adjoining property, 113. These are accessory buildings that, uh, uh, were built around 1900, 1901. They are not buildings, in my opinion, that have individual great significance. The, the major building to which these were accessories was torn down many years ago. And these were just left standing. Um, my client purchased both of these buildings in 1988 for $35,000 from a lady named Sally Cease, uh, unfortunately on April the 5th, 2006, a fire occurred at this property and did damage to the, to the backside of it, to the walls and structure, of course, but also did damage to the, smoke damage, um, water, everything else that happens with a fire. Could we have the next photo, please? This is the porch they're talking about. And by the way, these photographs were taken by, um, the code enforcement people on June the 9th, it's on the photo, of 2008. Uh, they obviously took, uh, photographs of areas that they thought needed help and things that were relevant to their code enforcement duties. You can see the f- the front porch, uh, is a mess. Can you take us on down to the next one here? Push it up some, please. Uh, this just gives you an idea of what the building looks like. Let's have the next set, please. Let's do the bottom one first. You can probably tell a little better if you a- if you actually look at the photograph, but that's a piece of plywood boarding up a window that all of the glass has been broken out of. Could we see the top? Yeah, I wanna see the top photo. This is the rear of the house. Uh, you can see it's got No Trespassing. You can see that it's been boarded up where people would come in through there and nothing has been done to rebil- rehabilitate the property since the fire. We have one more set of these, don't we? And again, this is the rear showing. This is where the fire occurred. This is where the fire damage occurred. Uh, these are pieces of plywood that were put up to try to, uh, prevent access, prevent further damage. There was further damage, as the ladies have mentioned. The electrical systems were ripped out for the metal. Uh, the bathroom facilities were vandalized and ripped out, uh, causing it to be even more dilapidated. Could we see the next document, please? Now this, that's pretty good. There's the date 9/26/07. This is from the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government Division of Code Enforcement, and it says that violations have been found. And what did they find? They found the s- the structure has been so old, dilapidated, so out of repair that it is dangerous, unsafe, unsanitary, unfit for human occupancy or use. When property is given, or when a property owner is given this condemnation notice, you either have to get it fixed or it's supposed to be demolished. Uh, Mr. Loflin, because of, uh, his difficulties with the Board of Architectural Review is in a big mess here because the, uh, code enforcement people have told him, "You've either gotta get it fixed or tear it down, or we're gonna tear it down for you." And yet when he goes to get the s- the Certificate of Appropriateness, they say, "No, it's historic. We're not gonna let you have a permit to tear it down." I, I, I don't think that divisions of government should run the risk of head-on collisions, but this is what's, uh, possible here. Can I see the next document, please? You can get this off of the internet. This is from the PVA's office. This shows what the, uh, assessed values of real estate are. And I'm sure all of you know, all real estate in Fayette County, Kentucky and in Kentucky must be assessed at fair market value for tax purposes. You can see what happened here. Here's 2006, the fire, $65,000. 2007 after the fire, $20,000. 2008, $20,000. The, uh, fire and resulting damage caused this structure to lose about 66% of its value, going from $65,000 down to $20,000. Flip the next one, please. My client, Pete Loflin, is not very good at filling out forms, and what occurred between him and the, um, Board of Architectural Review was a massive misunderstanding that irritated the people at the Board of Architectural Review because Pete couldn't get the application straight. ... uh, and in an attempt to give them the information that was needed, he brought them this. Now this is from, uh, the engineer that these ladies talked about. They indicated that this engineering report, uh, said that this property could be completely renovated and rehabilitated. Push it up a little bit. If you look at that sentence right there, "Based on the above visual asse- assessment, due to major foundation and framing deficiencies, total reconstruction is recommended." I don't want to quibble about terms, but total reconstruction to me in this kind of situation means that you do it again, that you build it all over. Next document, please. In order to find out what we were dealing with economically here, because that's the big question in this case is what are the economics of it? Uh, we presented, uh, specifications to fix it. And I don't know whe- whether you can read this or not, but it... Can you go in a little closer up on the top? Yeah, there, there we are. "Following preliminary proposal is based upon inspection of June 17, 2008, conversations with owner, it is understood that the structure is to be brought to 2007 Kentucky Building Code Standards." Go to the last page of this document, please. This is called bringing the property to code, is what it is. As you know, anytime any work is, is going to be done in the nature of construction work, the building inspector's gotta be involved, it's gotta be done to code. You can't build things that are under code. Push it on up a little bit more, 'cause I want to get the figure. There's what the contractor said it would take to bring it to code. 193,003... I think it's 899.20 for a piece of property where the total value, according to the, to the PVA is $20,000. Um, I think that's the last of the documents I have, but to, to wind up, Mr. Laughlin, it is, it's his own fault, uh, didn't submit the proper stuff that they wanted, and I think they're irritated with him. If you look at their representations and if you look and if you listen to the, uh, speeches that they've made here, what they're saying, a pay... At least 50% of that conduct is that Pete's a bad guy because he didn't give them the information he was supposed to give them. I agree. If that was what we were here to decide, I'm gonna lose, but that's not what we're here to decide. What we are here to decide without any deference to the Board of Architectural Review, is whether this building does not have a reasonable economic return that can be realized and denial would result in the taking without just compensation. Again, I would tell you, and I would urge you to find that it is not a reasonable economic return to spend $193,000 to repair a $20,000 piece of property, which you can't rent for those figures anyway. This is a common sense kind of thing. This is, this is not rocket science. Uh, what they say in opposition, uh, doesn't... A- as far as what the Board of, of Architectural Review found, it doesn't matter. This is a de novo hearing. You are getting, or Mr. Laughlin's getting a fresh look at this without any deference to anything that's gone before it. It's, it's as if you were deciding it originally. The other things they do, such as saying it possibly could be renovated, that's not what the engineer's report says when they talk about maybe you can get a historic tax credit. Well, you've got to have taxable income to get the credit, and even if they were to, uh, achieve the savings of 20, uh, 20% on the $200,000, that still leaves 160. And I would submit to you respectively that it doesn't make any sense to spend $160,000 on a $20,000 piece of property that has a badly, badly injured building that cannot be preserved. So government has said that this building is under condemnation order. If it, if we could get a certificate of appropriateness to demolish the business, we would, to b- to demolish the building, we would, and the building would come down, but we can't do that because they won't give it to us. Their participation's over. It's your decision now. I would respectfully ask you to order that the certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of 115 Jefferson be ordered. Any questions? Thank you, Mr. Rosenbaum. Any questions? Ms. Copeland? Yes. Uh, since Mr. Laughlin isn't here, um, I was... I'm tr- I think I have met him. Didn't he own Boone Antiques? Yes, he was associated with Boone's many years. And then he, uh, d- restored the house there that's, um, diagonal from the church at the Jefferson Street Viaduct. That's, that's exactly right. Uh- And built all the next three or four buildings that's adjacent to it. He owned, he owned all of them. He's had a lifetime of rehabilitating dilapidated property, which is another reason- ... to-- for you to believe that this is not economical because if he could make money out of it, he would. Well, and then it was a historic zone in 1970. He bought it in 1988. So he was-- wouldn't you say he was well-versed in historic zoning? Oh, I would think he is. Okay. So he knew the risk of fire and probably had insurances. We want- He had some insurance on the structure, but not on the contents. Uh, but- So that factors in a little bit. Yeah. Yeah. Um, I think we need to consider the whole neighborhood and they have made a tremendous effort at restoring and upgrading that whole development. And for us to take this, pluck this piece out of the whole streetscape, I think would be a mistake. I think Mr. Loflin was, uh, aware of the risk and that's just part of owning property to have a fire. If I might address that, I-- I would submit to you that the property had already been plucked. The fire plucked the property. Mr. Loflin- Well- ... is perfectly able to live with his decisions on whether or not to sell or buy property, but an untoward event like a fire is not something that you, you know, put in your prospectus. Yes, but I think we should support the historic zone. Well, I do too and-- and I'd like to suggest to you that on the northwest corner of the Main and Jefferson intersection, Mr. Loflin took what was an old beer joint, made it into a Saturday and Sunday market. Proceeding west on the same side of the street, he took an old dilapidated house that was run down, made it into a marvelous urban townhouse. Uh, he owns this little alley that runs parallel to West Main up behind this property. He owns a couple of pieces of property up there. You know, no one is more in favor than he is, but-- but this, but to be in favor of historic preservation or not isn't the issue. The issue is, what about the money? Can he-- can he do this or reasonably expect to do this economically, a reasonable economic return after the fire? And the answer I think is pretty clear by the uncontradicted evidence, you can't. You can't. You've got to decide this case on the evidence that's been put before you. In-- in law, we often say that on another day at another time, my evidence might be better, my evidence might be worse. I can speculate, you know, whether I'm right or wrong, but in this case, it's simple because the evidence is it's worth $20,000 and it would take $193,000 to build it up and that's the issue and-- and that's not reasonable. Thank you. Are there any other questions for Mr. Rosenbaum? Thanks, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mm-hmm. Okay. Um, staff, do you have any- any additional comments you'd like to add? Rebuttal? No rebuttal? Okay. All right. Uh, just a couple of things. Um, this is undoubtedly a building that can be preserved and you'll see in the ordinance that should the, you know, current property owner elect to not want to try that, uh, one of the things they're charged with is demonstrating that they have made every attempt to sell the building to somebody else who is interested in, uh, preservation and renovation of the building and that has not been demonstrated to have been the case and- and was discussed at the Board of Architecture review. Um, the type of the building this is, it does need a foundation. That's not uncommon with a post and beam type construction in historic buildings. Neither 113, which is not before you today, or its twin, 115, which is before you today, uh, have a full foundation under them and certainly would be desirous to do that. But a lot of what you see reflected in the structural engineer's reporting deals with, uh, resolving things like that and it's very commonly done with buildings of this nature across the community and elsewhere. These vernacular, particularly framed cottages, are often the buildings most at risk in these neighborhoods. They are not your, uh, ultimate rich houses of high design and high construction materials perhaps, but they are very important to the makeup of the neighborhood and to the makeup of the community in terms of representing all types of architectural styles, all types of socioeconomic, uh, lifestyle in part importance of the community in k- in retaining that mix and reflecting all ranges of our community's heritage and history. And so, uh, it is a significant building in terms of its architecture and its history, uh, in itself and to that neighborhood and to our community and, uh, it certainly is in accordance with the guidelines in Article 13, uh, to see to it that this building has the possibility of being retained and continuing to play a viable role in the community. I would note one thing you didn't mention about the condemnation, that condemnation was relative to it being inhabited. It was not condemned and ordered demolished, so it is the property owner's choice to pursue demolition, um, but it was not ordered demolished by a code enforcement. That's all I have. Mr. Holmes, you had a question? Yeah, I just had a question for Ms. Kerr. Has there ever been any instances where, or is there a fund that can acquire structures like that, that if the owner can't afford to fix, fix those up or is there something that could par- purchase those? I would bet there were. Uh, there really isn't. There, depending upon who owns the building, there, there could be a possibility through community development if they're in county government with, uh, neighborhood monies to get some financial assistance to an owner-occupier, if that was the scenario. Um, there would be, to an owner-occupier, state tax credit possibilities. Um, for an income-producing property, these federal tax credits we have mentioned. Um, but there's not a, a big grant waiting out there to come and say, "Hey, we're gonna match half of your expense," or anything like that. Boy, if y'all can come up with something like that, that'd be fabulous. But I regret to say no, but there are a few things to assist in the other directions. Thank you. Uh, Mr. Owens? Uh, yes, thank you. Um, I'm not sure if th- this would be for Barb or, or Mrs. Kerr, but as far as, uh, one of the reasons that the staff's recommending disapproval, number four, as far as tax credits, I've, I've heard a couple of things today. With this unit, with this house, the way it is presently, um, is there or is there not tax credits available for reconstruction? Absolutely, there are. Okay. Thank you. Uh, Mr. Rosenbaum, you had rebuttal? Yes, Your Honor, I did. Um, I hate to be the squeaky wheel, uh, but there was a comment made that Mr. Laughlin had never offered this for sale attached to the, uh, appeal, copies of the listing and the contracts where he has tried to sell it. All of the documents I've talked about are attachments, uh, to the appeal papers. Uh, they're all in play here. And the other thing is, uh, back to the, the demolition again, the demolition order, I think as everybody knows, says you either fix it or we're gonna tear it down and charge you for it. Uh, it, it's not a choice particularly. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Rosenbaum. Do we have any questions, uh, from the commission for Mr. Rosenbaum? I've, I've got a question, and this is m- probably more for knowledge than maybe about this, but when you talk about these post and beams houses are basically ones where they just, or one I have got cedar posts and then they built it. Is there any requirement to, to update those, uh, put a foundation under, or is this is just in a bag case-by-case hap- It's on a case-by-case basis as needed. Uh, it would have to be enclosed, you know, not have an open space under the house in terms of vermin and that kind of stuff. But there is a skirt board serving that function around the house, but it, it's, um, needing s- more structural support in this instance than those post and beam system is giving it. But, um, if it were functioning thoroughly, there are many that continue on in that manner for many years without ever being changed. So it could be renovated without ha- w- and you wouldn't have to go in and put a new foundation? I don't know enough of the, um, details of this particular situation to know if part- if it could be partly done with, um, other structural members membered on to help provide support or if it would need a total replacement. Yeah, I mean, what, what I was trying to get at is the cost of this $200,000, could- Right, it's something that- ... could, could it be done? ... depending upon the scope of work, I think you will find different opinions and different prices reflected. Thank you. Mr. Pan. Ms. Kerr, on the, uh, on the demolition, uh, would code enforcement know when they saw that building that was in the historic district and would you be notified that they were gonna issue a demolition permit at that point? Uh, they are aware, of course, of where all the historic districts are and that process. And Ms. Armstrong, our preservation inspector, has been working with code enforcement in the sense of communication back and forth about this, uh, as well as with Mr. Laughlin in terms of the kinds of information needed and that sort of thing. Um, so yes, they're aware, and if they have, if they find a situation that something is structurally unsound to the point of collapse, then historic district or not, they're gonna order it be torn down. And that is not the case in this situation. Thank you. Uh, I, I guess if it's not fixed soon, then it, it, it gets worse to the, then it will be to the point of collapsing, wouldn't it? Right, and one of the things code enforcement's, uh, citations reflect is, you know, needing, this property needs to be having some repairs made in order to take care of the existing condition and ensure it doesn't get any worse. Yeah. One thing too, it was mentioned, um, about the, the selling it, that material that was provided, uh, relative to having listed it for sale was back in 2005, and it, there's no documentation of, of it, and we asked expressly of Mr. Laughlin, uh, had it been offered for sale since 2005, and, and it has not. Thank you. Mr. Rosenbaum, you have anything additional you'd like to add? Oh, I, I don't think so. I think the demolition stuff speaks by, speaks to itself. It says that it's unfit for human occ- occupancy, that it's dilapidated, that it's so old. In terms of the foundation, the structural engineer's report says you've gotta either put concrete block or concrete around all that foundation because it's unstable the way it is, and that's what it says. But again- I'm trying to keep my eye on the rabbit here. The rabbit is whether or not this can be economically managed to have a reasonable return, and there's no conflict about that evidence, I don't believe. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Okay, we'll, uh- I'm sorry, just one question. ... oh, sorry. Go ahead. On, on the legal, whether this is an appeal or de novo? This is, uh, definitely a de novo hearing, which basically means you're making a new decision. You can look at any evidence being presented. You are not restricted to the record. Um, however, there is, um, an indication in 13-8A2 in discussing the action by the planning commission that says, "In its deliberations, the planning commission shall give due consideration to the decision of the board and the findings and conclusions reflected in the board's record and shall apply the design guidelines adopted by the Historic Preservation Commission." So your appeal is not limited to, is their decision supported, and therefore it should be affirmed. It is different from an appeal in that respect. You are applying the guidelines yourself to the evidence before you, but you don't just ignore the decision of the BOAR. You do consider it and, and the reasons it adopted, it's just not necessarily determinant of your decision. Thank you. And, and yeah, I'm, I'm a little confused by the whole process, but, uh, in this case, it sounds like this gentleman has done a very good, good effort, good work in the neighborhood. Um, I would tend to trust somebody who does that, but it seems like it's, it's not a financially viable, um, project. So if we, if we end up approving this, does it go back to Architectural Review, or what happens? Do you have conflicting... You are the appellate body. We are the appellant. If you overturn the decision of the Board of Architectural Review- It's not- ... then they will receive the Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish the structure. Thank you. Thank you for the clarification. Uh, at this point, we'll close the portion of the hearing, and then, uh, I guess turn it over to commission for comment. Mr. Cravens? Yeah, i- in these minutes, um, is, somebody asked if the, if there was an insurance payment on the house. Do you know the amount of that? Approximately $40,000. Okay. And, and the tax credits, um, wh- what's the percentage? Uh, you said 20%. Um- 20%. Who, who, who is the question directed to, Mr. Cravens? Mr. Kerr. Okay. Mr. Kerr Opie. It's, uh, 20% if you put $100,000 in a building or, and, uh, it was all of a type of expense that meets the criteria for certification, then you would have a $20,000 tax credit. It's 20% of the, of what? 20%. What you spend? Of the expenditure for the renovation, and that can include mechanical systems, and it's pretty much everything as long as it attaches to the house in some fashion. You know, fixtures, bathroom, that kind of stuff, all those types of things. Okay. You cannot do new construction. You couldn't put a new addition on the back and take the tax credit on that portion, but anything on the historic portion, um, short of perhaps the chandeliers, 'cause you could take those down and remove them, would be, uh, considered eligible to be counted for your tax credit purposes. Okay. And, um, there's no state tax credit on that, or there is? There is a state tax credit also available, and it's 30%. So the two- In addition to the 20? ... the two can be used on the same project concurrently. And, and, uh, tax credits are something a lot of people like. Um, I, I guess you wouldn't have to have the income to get the tax credit. You still get the tax credit even if your income was... You do, and, um, get, get the tax credit. Tax credits can be sold- Yeah. ... also, and so even if you did have a situation, which I don't believe is the case in this instance, but I'm not privy to Mr. Laughlin's finances, but we've worked with him for 30 years on all these various projects, um, you can sell tax credits, but- Yeah. ... but I suspect that many, many of these scenarios, there, uh, the property owner would be in a position to utilize the credit. Well, I'm, I'm just look, it looks like you'd have 100,000 in tax credits and then 40,000 in insurance money. Plus the 20,000. But, uh, I see the appraisal here of, um, I see the, the bid was 193,000 and appraisal's 165,000. That looks like something I usually have in my accounts, but - ... my buildings , they go down as you're building them right now . Okay, thanks. Thank you. Are there any other questions? Any comments? Yeah, I've got one. It, it would have been helpful if we'd have had more than one estimate of what it cost to fi- fix this house. I mean, I, I don't have any expertise in that, but that looks like an awful lot of money for that square footage to, to redo. Uh, you know, all of us have had estimates done, and you can get high estimates and you can get low estimates. I, I just, that just seemed like an awful high estimate to me to, to, to do that house. That's a very small square foot house. Uh, so I have a hard time going the financial part of this, just because I think that's an extremely high estimate, but I could be wrong. Are there any other comments? I, I would, uh, I guess Ms. Copeland made a comment earlier about contex- contextual aspect of this neighborhood and the streetscaping, and I think, you know, this, when you have a structure and you have a twin like it- It -- it adds to that streetscape, and it adds to the character of that neighborhood and -- and, uh, I would hate to see that go away. Um, um, and I also think that, uh, with Penn, with Mr. Penn, we were talking about the -- the est -- the estimates. I think you would need at least two more. You always get a high and a low and hopefully somewhere in the middle. It, to me, it appears somewhat out of -- out of line for this, based on the photographs that I saw that staff took in July, I guess it was. But, uh, those are the comments I -- I'd like to put out, so... If there's, uh, no further comment, uh, chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move that we disapprove, in agreement with the staff, BOAR2008-1. Uh, uh- Is -- okay, we have a motion and a se- is that a second, mister- I'm try- can you clarify your- Thank you. ... your motion? Are you- So moved. ... are you in favor of the appeal or against it, I guess? I'm trying to do what the staff said do, which is disapprove it, which is what would be in support of BOAR. Correct. And I think that's what, uh, uphold the BOAR decision, uh- Right. ... motion to disapprove per staff's recommendations. Okay. All right, we have a motion and a second, um, to uphold the BOAR's decision and, uh, disapprove for the reasons provided by staff. All those in favor, signify by saying eye. Eye. Opposed, say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Okay, we have, uh, one other item on the, uh, agenda here, it looks like. ... the way all other conditional zoning changes are, are done currently. So, so you're saying, uh, you would shorten that time of the appeal only, right? Yes. Uh, we, we were prepared to discuss with you next week how we can carve a couple of weeks off that review time- Well- ... to make it more similar to what a dimensional variance timeline is. I, I, I guess, um, I mean that puts it in front of... Would that put it in front of, uh, other zone changes? Or, I mean, how would that work? It wouldn't put them in front of 'em, uh, it would, uh, uh, the concept would be is that we would hear these on the day of your subdivision meeting, which would be today, rather than at your zoning meeting on the same month. Okay. Yeah, I mean, I wouldn't be in favor of... I, I guess in fairness in zone changes, I wouldn't be in favor of giving this application a shorter time or any, in- anything, uh, shorter than somebody trying to rezone land or something. Right. What I can tell you is this text amendment doesn't address when they're scheduled. Uh, that is done through your meeting and filing schedule. We'll have a draft of next year's available to you next week. And, and I guess, um, you know, I've gotten all this paper up here today, um, and then you want us to act on it. I mean, we need these things... You just now handed this out, you could have handed it out earlier today. Mm-hmm. And I haven't had time to look at it or anything and, um, then now we're expected to act on it. Uh, is there some way we could fix that? Well, what I can tell you is if it's initiated today, yes, we can, can fix that, and it's been distributed, uh, before to other, uh, at other meetings. But if it's initiated today, we want to get you the text of what was being talked about in terms of initiation. But this will go through both committees, uh, and you will have a public hearing on this text amendment. Certainly, we can afford any comments from the committees and make any possible changes, uh, that the commission or the sub-committees desire. We'll have a full review as we do all text amendments. Thank you, Bill. I, I think, uh, I was at the zoning. You had some other documents and flowcharts, there were some flowcharts that I think probably address Mr. Craven's question about the time sequence and- Mm-hmm. ... days and so forth and, and- You're right. Yeah. They did talk about it. But, but I think, you know, at some point- I just don't think it's- ... can we get, we can get that information out to him. Absolutely. Today is just the initiation. So we will have hopefully ample time to review that. And, and certainly if the commission wants to, to wait to initiate it, that's also possible. Right, right. It's, it's up, you know, it's up to the commission if you want- Well, that, that, I guess, is my point. I, I can't, you know... I mean, I'm handed this, you know, just now. And, and I've got to read this underlined stuff and comprehend it and all that. And then, um, I don't know what I'll say. They said they have charts and things. Mm-hmm. Um, you, you know, the time to stop an, uh, uh, an amend- a text amendment would be now if you wanted to stop it. Mm-hmm. I mean, I'm not saying I do, but I don't know whether... You see what I'm saying? Well, I, I apologize too, Mr. Cravens. We've handed this out twice before and I just did- I- ... not realize you weren't at either meeting, I apologize to you. Well, I mean, if you just hand it out at the first of the meeting day, I mean... I'm just a little suspicious when I get something right at the minute I gotta act on it. Right. I don't know why I would say that, but I... We- Looking at you, I'm not suspicious of you. No, no, no, I understand. We, we should have handed this out to you at the break and I apologize for that. I just- I've, I've seen this an awful lot and I thought they did a hell of a good job on - Second. Okay, is that a motion, Mr. Brewer? Is there a second? Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second to, to initiate the, uh, this text amendment, uh, for the ND1. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. All opposed, please say no. No. Duly noted. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. My voice is having a rough day today. I'm telling you. Uh, Bill, I'm gonna call on you one more time. Are there any other staff items? Okay, great. And I don't see any audience. Is there a motion for adjournment? So moved. Second. All right.